Belief without evidence argument

rockbeer

fergalr, I think you're missing the point...

I wouldn't attack anyone's belief that they lived in a computer simulation rather than on a planet purely for its own sake, nor their belief in a deity. I don't believe most other atheists would either. People really can believe what they like.

I would, however, attack that belief if they used it as the foundation for a system that involved worshipping the programmers, proscribing certain behaviours that 'endangered' the code, making sweeping moral judgments on the basis of it, setting up state-sanctioned organizations to promote it, damning for eternity people who didn't share it, promising people who did share it eternal life, modeling society on it, and trying to convince me and others to share it.

In short, I can safely say that I really don't care what people believe privately, as long as they don't attempt to co-opt others into sharing those beliefs. At that point it switches from harmless belief to potentially dangerous delusion.

There is precisely as much evidence for the computer simulation as god, but as far as I know no-one has killed, condemned or converted anyone else on the non-existent strength of it. When that starts happening I'll start attacking computer-believers beliefs too.

For me at least, it's a practical thing.

fergalr

pH wrote: »

Without being too smart there's another couple of things to keep in mind here.

Firstly these "there's no proof of anything, even in logic you have to take things (axioms) on faith" arguments are fairly self defeating, as to actually have an argument and make these points you have to "take the axioms" on faith so whatever argument you're bringing to bear about "belief in with no evidence" can be turned around and aimed directly at the argument itself.

Yes, I see what your saying, and this has occurred to be before. Does anyone know if this is related to godel's incompleteness theorem, or just feels similar?
On the other hand, I'm not sure the argument is actually self defeating. It's not clear to me that the system of logic in which we are reasoning is the same system of the same complexity as the system of logic we are discussing. Are we not maybe one more meta level out? This is a guess, and a diversion.

Still, even if we chose not to use the example of inductive reasoning as an example of something many atheists believe in, but cannot prove, we are still left with the example of the world being objectively real (and probably plenty of other examples of things atheists believe without proof, that aren't self referential).
Given this, the original argument stands.

pH wrote: »

Not only do they undermine the atheist's "correctness" to be snooty about "theists' lack of evidence" they also undermine your "correctness" in being snooty about atheists being snooty about theists.

Secondly we can consider ducks.



I a very *real* sense if you cannot conceive of any test that can differentiate 2 things then they really are the same thing. If you want to take 2 identical things and call them different things, with absolutely no way of telling them apart, then you're really just playing word games.

First off, are you sure about that?
If I can't conceive of any way to tell a synthetic diamond from a real one, are they the same? What if de biers invents a machine that does it in a few years?
Does there sameness alter?
Is sameness constant over time as other information comes forward?

Do you mean if it's fundamentally impossible to tell them apart, then they are the same thing? What does it mean for it to be fundamentally impossible?


Anyway, granting you what you said, this would mean that the question of whether there is a god that exists that has no measurable effect on the universe has no fundamental truth or falseness about it.
If we accept that, is it any more or less rational to believe or disbelieve in one, given the absence of evidence? Is it reasonable to rubbish someone that does believe in one, on the basis of the absence of evidence, if the two states are the same anyway?
Hmm...

fergalr

leaba wrote: »

Please state again what we believe that we do not have evidence for.

I'm afraid I don't think I'm going to do much better than I already have - might introduce new examples later, if I can think of them, or it becomes necessary.

Also please explain how when you walk around the planet, there is no evidence of walking around a planet.

Here, I can't do that, that's pretty much begging the question, and it's not really something I can answer.
I'd be saying that if this was a simulation, you'd perceive the same as you do now, so what you perceive as evidence of you not being in a simulation, ie, walking around a planet, can't necessarily be counted as such, in a discussion at this level (examining very basic axioms)
Does that make sense?

if there is evidence of walking around a planet when walking around the planet, please explain how there is evidence of a computer simulation.

Theres no evidence of a computer simulation either.

fergalr

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's no observable difference between perceptions entirely consistent with an objective external reality and the actuality of it. Since our observations and thus the rules and models we build upon those will be the same irrespective we can either make the positive assumption that the universe exists objectively or discard the idea as irrelevant and carry on regardless. It makes no difference whatsoever.

pH also made that point; it is a good point, thanks!

Again, I would question the difference between a phenomenon that merely appears to be 100% consistent and one that hypothetically is in some objective sense. We can assume induction to be applicable or not with the same outcome; it will continue to appear to be.

Neither objective reality nor the validity of induction are testable in themselves but their veracity is not relevant.

Given this, would you say the same thing about the existence of a god that was also not testable, and the belief therein?
That it's veracity was not relevant?
Is it then fair to say that rejecting the belief in such an entity on the basis of the lack of evidence is not a reasonable thing to do?
(could perhaps reject it on utility etc)

pH: Same question to you..?

fergalr

jim o doom wrote: »

OK - here is the only way I see it; In both life & argument we need a constant, just like in a lab test. We take things like "reality" and "gravity" as given, which is unquesionable. If you are to take "reality" as something which is not a constant, i.e. "a simulation" - then argument is pointless. Why argue about anything whatsoever, when you are asking your opponent to prove reality itself. I don't "believe" in reality, I exist in it. It is a constant for me and for anyone I have an argument involving logic. And there's the word. Logic - if you say 2 + 2 might not actually be 4 - then all conventional logic cannot be applied to any argument. On that basis argument is therefore pointless as no part of any argument can be applied with out logic - or the constant - reality. So in other words, this is my final note in this thread; because you are simply unwilling to take "logic" & "reality" as constants - on that basis I have no common ground with which to argue with you as you don't accept these basic constants. And if someone else where to try use that argument against me, I would simply do what I am doing here, which is "believe what you want to believe with regards to reality, I am outta here - good luck."

Jim,
Thanks for your response. Thats fine of course if you don't want to think about these things in these terms.
The only reason I'm going here is because a lot of theists put god in there, into their basic constants, as you call them, along with logic and reality as you describe.
So in order to discuss whether Dawkins rejection of these things is reasonable, I felt I had to go there.
I'm sure we share a lot of the same views on reality and logic on a day to day basis - this is very much me having hypothetical discussion.
Best of luck,
Fergal

fergalr

Hey, you said you were out of here

jim o doom wrote: »

christ on a bike man. Why not god too? because what we accept as constants, i.e. REALITY have sensory inputs

No, you can't use the sensory inputs as an argument for reality, unless your willing to accord them a monopoly on truth, which is fine for the time being, but in period of years, we'll have VR going in at a very low level, and this argument will be tough to sustain.

- which could be theorised to be something else - but like chewy existing in some faraway galaxy is highly unlikely.

You have to establish that it's unlikely. It's not the same as chewy, with a finite countable universe the chances of lucas guessing right in every detail are very slim, but we don't have information on the probability on simulation.

We have to accept these constants to exist - if we took gravity to possibly not exist, we might be clinging to the ground the whole time.

Which would still be existing. We don't need to accept them to exist. Before newton people didn't know about gravity and got on fine - that's just one example, I know you are saying something more complex than that, but I still don't agree.

If we REALLY REALLY belived it was all a simulation, we would believe our actions had no consequences in the real world, and would all do as we pleased.

I wasn't saying this should be believed, just that it's commonly disbelieved, without evidence.

If we TRULY believed that 2 + 2 was ANYTHING OTHER than 4 then we would no longer use mathematics - the basis for many things in our modern world. The constants, the reality. We DO NOT have to accept GOD to exist, because it has NO effect on our actual lives.

The belief has a lot of effect on a lot of lives, surely?

fergalr

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Do you remember that the program in that movie had glitches in the system, like a duplicate event happening anytime 'they' changed something (the black cat scene). Would that not count as evidence that something is not quite right?

It would - I was considering a more perfect simulation than in the matrix, someone else brought up the matrix and I just used it as an example that would be readily familiar to other posters. Not saying there's any agents out there coming to get me.

leaba

fergalr wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't think I'm going to do much better than I already have - might introduce new examples later, if I can think of them, or it becomes necessary.



Here, I can't do that, that's pretty much begging the question, and it's not really something I can answer.
I'd be saying that if this was a simulation, you'd perceive the same as you do now, so what you perceive as evidence of you not being in a simulation, ie, walking around a planet, can't necessarily be counted as such, in a discussion at this level (examining very basic axioms)
Does that make sense?

No it does not make sense. What you are saying is that evidence of you not being in a simulation is not evidence of you not being in a simulation.

So in one case there is evidence that you're saying might not be real in the other case there's just no evidence at all.

fergalr

leaba wrote: »

I have seen the movie.

Is this the basis of the question? There was a movie where people believed the evidence and they were wrong, so maybe people that believe without evidence are right, so should we leave them alone?

No, it is emphatically not the basis of my question. Shooter introduced the phrase 'matrix-esque'.

The basis of my question was a podcast with Richard Dawkins on it I listened to last night, where he rubbished religious people for believing in a god, because they believed in something they had no evidence for.
My point is that most atheists, probably including dawkins, unless he's an uber philosophical skeptic, also believe things do have no evidence for.

Which doesn't mean that I'm saying belief in god is right.
I'm saying that it shouldn't be attacked purely on the basis that there's no evidence for it.
I'm also not saying I think there is evidence for it, or that if someone claims evidence, that evidence shouldn't be attacked.

I have stated this several times in the thread so far

fergalr

pH wrote: »

I'm still unsure what exactly is the point you're making. Is it that (some) atheists are hypocritical to say that theists shouldn't believe in God without evidence? Is it that it's illogical to do so, or that they have no 'right' (whatever that may be) to do so? Perhaps you should restate the point/argument you're trying to make.

pH: Yes, that is the point I am trying to make. That it is illogical, and possibly also hypocritical, to say that theists shouldn't believe in God without evidence, while maintaining other fundamental beliefs without evidence.

Nothing stronger than that, not an argument for theism, or against atheism.

fergalr

rockbeer wrote: »

fergalr, I think you're missing the point...

I wouldn't attack anyone's belief that they lived in a computer simulation rather than on a planet purely for its own sake, nor their belief in a deity. I don't believe most other atheists would either. People really can believe what they like.

I would, however, attack that belief if they used it as the foundation for a system that involved worshipping the programmers, proscribing certain behaviours that 'endangered' the code, making sweeping moral judgments on the basis of it, setting up state-sanctioned organizations to promote it, damning for eternity people who didn't share it, promising people who did share it eternal life, modeling society on it, and trying to convince me and others to share it.

In short, I can safely say that I really don't care what people believe privately, as long as they don't attempt to co-opt others into sharing those beliefs. At that point it switches from harmless belief to potentially dangerous delusion.

There is precisely as much evidence for the computer simulation as god, but as far as I know no-one has killed, condemned or converted anyone else on the non-existent strength of it. When that starts happening I'll start attacking computer-believers beliefs too.

For me at least, it's a practical thing.

Rockbeer, I'm not missing the point, I don't think, because I wasn't attacking atheism - just one specific line of reasoning voiced by a prominent atheist.

As an aside:
I broadly agree with the rest of your post, although I don't think it's fair to judge the truth of beliefs purely on the consequences of the beliefs, which you seem to do.
Also, I am unconvinced that atheist societies would not just fight just as much but over different motivations, but that's an open question, and not one to debate on this thread.

Thanks for the reply.

fergalr

leaba wrote: »

No it does not make sense. What you are saying is that evidence of you not being in a simulation is not evidence of you not being in a simulation.

So in one case there is evidence that you're saying might not be real in the other case there's just no evidence at all.

I'm not sure we can consider (evidence that might not be evidence), as evidence, though, can we?
That's where I'm coming from.

rockbeer

fergalr wrote: »

Rockbeer, I'm not missing the point, I don't think, because I wasn't attacking atheism - just one specific line of reasoning voiced by a prominent atheist.

Fair enough - I think I'm trying to say that Dawkins and others perhaps use the evidence argument among many others in response to the consequences of religious belief. Without those consequences, most atheists wouldn't bother getting into intense philosophical arguments over belief for its own sake.

fergalr wrote: »

As an aside:
I broadly agree with the rest of your post, although I don't think it's fair to judge the truth of beliefs purely on the consequences of the beliefs, which you seem to do.

Not at all - I judge the value of beliefs on the basis of their consequences. The truth is another matter entirely. If there were compelling evidence for the accuracy of some grim theological claim or other - let's say heaven and hell - I'd have no choice but to accept its truth however unpalatable that might be. Without evidence, well, it's fair game for attack don't you think?

fergalr wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

Hey you're welcome. Hope you find what you're looking for :pac:

Zombrex

fergalr wrote: »

My point is that most atheists, probably including dawkins, unless he's an uber philosophical skeptic, also believe things do have no evidence for.

yes but you reach that conclusion by invoking the negative.

Dawkins believes he isn't living in a computer simulation despite there being no evidence that he isn't living in a computer simulation.

Which is someone missing the point.

Dawkins (I imagine) doesn't not believe he is living in a computer simulation, he believes he is living in the universe that presents itself, through evidence.

If he is actually living in a computer system then it is a computer system designed to look like something else, ie it is a trick, a fabrication of evidence. And Dawkins can only go on the evidence. If some unknown entity is fiddling with the evidence then that isn't Dawkins problem.

I would point out that that Dawkins, like all good scientists, does not say he is 100% certain that there is no gods, only that the alternative is far far more likely based on the evidence. There are is lots of evidence gods don't exist. There is very little evidence they do (believers disagree, but that is maninly because what they count as evidence, ie "funny feelings" they have, isn't what most would consider proper evidence).

These gods of course, being super powerful, could be fiddling with the evidence. But again, just like the Matrix designed to look like it doesn't exist, we can only go on the world that is presented to us.

AtomicHorror

fergalr wrote: »

Given this, would you say the same thing about the existence of a god that was also not testable, and the belief therein?
That it's veracity was not relevant?

I'm not clear on the matter but I'll try to explain my position on this. It depends on the specific definition of God really. So there's a couple of ways of looking at it. There's no evidence for the existence of a culture-nonspecific God, nor is the concept testable or likely to have real world implications. Thus the existence of that vague God is irrelevant to me.

However, most Gods come with real-world implications. The positive assumption thus compels us to modify our behaviour. So we don't really have the same choices when it comes to the existence of any particular God as we do in the case of the nonspecific God or the reality question. We may dismiss a given God (such as the Judeo-Christian God) or accept it- but not regard it as irrelevant. Some of these implications are also things that we can test.

Assuming the universe is objectively real (or that its objective reality is irrelevant) has no particular implications. Although the converse might cause us to behave as though our actions are consequence-free or consequence-unpredictable, that is not necessarily the logical extension since the rejection of objective reality still leaves us with the appearance of consequence.

fergalr wrote: »

Is it then fair to say that rejecting the belief in such an entity on the basis of the lack of evidence is not a reasonable thing to do?
(could perhaps reject it on utility etc)

We can reject the vague God based on relevance and utility. We can reject more specific Gods on the basis of evidence.

leaba

fergalr wrote: »

I'm not sure we can consider (evidence that might not be evidence), as evidence, though, can we?
That's where I'm coming from.

If there is any chance the evidence is valid it is a better proposition than the option for which there is no evidence.

Also...what Wicknight said. I really think you are missing the point. This has been stated several times in the thread

ShooterSF

rockbeer wrote: »

fergalr, I think you're missing the point...

I wouldn't attack anyone's belief that they lived in a computer simulation rather than on a planet purely for its own sake, nor their belief in a deity. I don't believe most other atheists would either. People really can believe what they like.

I would, however, attack that belief if they used it as the foundation for a system that involved worshipping the programmers, proscribing certain behaviours that 'endangered' the code, making sweeping moral judgments on the basis of it, setting up state-sanctioned organizations to promote it, damning for eternity people who didn't share it, promising people who did share it eternal life, modeling society on it, and trying to convince me and others to share it.

In short, I can safely say that I really don't care what people believe privately, as long as they don't attempt to co-opt others into sharing those beliefs. At that point it switches from harmless belief to potentially dangerous delusion.

There is precisely as much evidence for the computer simulation as god, but as far as I know no-one has killed, condemned or converted anyone else on the non-existent strength of it. When that starts happening I'll start attacking computer-believers beliefs too.

For me at least, it's a practical thing.

This is how I'd see it. I'd have litle respect for someone with such odd beliefs but wouldnt have a personal problem with them until they wanted their beliefs taught in schools or affecting national laws etc. such as the catholic church does with it's beliefs. It's at this point I have a problem with other people's faiths.

People can have faith in whatever they want but don't go preaching, converting or attacking people who want the same level as evidence to believe that we needed to accept that reality exists (i.e some level,hell any would be a start)

Oh and the jumping on bertie's head comment was pretty funny!

GothPunk

When you compare the theists belief in god(s) and the atheists 'belief' in reality, you're not comparing like with like.

When Dawkins makes the comment about believing things that have no evidence, he is talking about a potentially testable 'god hypothesis'. Regardless as to whether this 'reality' is as we accept it to be or is infact a computer simulation is not important, as the 'god hypothesis' makes comments about said reality. (That is to say, Dawkins is talking only about belief without evidence within the confines of this reality.)

To take the 'reality hypothesis' that you are proposing, it is not 'testable'. You are questioning the validity of our senses, as to whether what we percieve does in fact match up with reality. There is evidence of our reality, but you are questioning the validity of said evidence. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but that's just vapid philosophical fanwankery.

Yes, from a philosophical viewpoint, we have faith in our senses, and thus our evidence of reality. However, when you doubt our senses, reality becomes a free-for-all, anything is possible and you can't provedemonstrate it because what you are seeing/hearing/smelling could all be a trick/rose coloured glasses/smoke and mirrors. Our senses are all we have with which to percieve reality, outside of the evidence we collect using them there can be no debate, as nothing can be quantified or qualified.

Let's take an old example: a court case. If you were on trial for murder, and there were two unrelated witnesses who could identify you as the killer, your defense lawyer could not then question the validity of our senses and the very fabric of reality itself to get you off. It's just not practical. In real life, people usually can't be imprisoned based on circumstantial evidence alone either - you can believe all you want that Ms.X killed Mr.Y, but without hard evidence you don't have a leg to stand on. This is one of the core arguments for the atheist viewpoint - cold hard evidence.

Besides, everyone makes this leap of 'faith' (with evidence you don't seem to trust) regarding reality that you are using against atheists for thier derision of theists. Outside of metaphysics, there's no real debate there.

However, not everyone makes the leap of faith without evidence that theists make. I think that's as simply as I can put my point.

It's really intellectually disingenuous to wave your arms mystically and say 'But you believe in evidence and reality, *spooky voice* oooooh'.

******
As a side note, would I be right in suggesting that many atheists are tired by this line of reasoning almost as much as religious non-reasoning? It seems that many atheists are atheists because of an evidence and logic based approach to understanding the world, and this metaphysical philosophy abandons both.
******
It's also clear that when most people here are talking about 'proof' and 'evidence', that we're talking of the scientific variety, and thus an online dictionary is unlikely to be the best source.

fergalr

My point is that most atheists, probably including dawkins, unless he's an uber philosophical skeptic, also believe things do have no evidence for.

Wicknight wrote: »

yes but you reach that conclusion by invoking the negative.

Dawkins believes he isn't living in a computer simulation despite there being no evidence that he isn't living in a computer simulation.

I don't believe I do reach that conclusion by 'invoking the negative'.

Lets not use dawkins specifically, as I don't actually know what he personally thinks about this.

I think it is fair to say most atheists believe in the accuracy of perceived external reality.

Why do they do so?
What evidence have they that allows them to say that the world they perceive is real?
I am not shifting any burden of proof here: They believe in it, in the absence of evidence, so the burden rests with them.

To be clear, I think it is useful to believe that I am perceiving a world beyond me, a world that exists and is real. But I have no evidence for this.
I believe it in the absence of evidence, because I have to believe something, because it is useful for me to believe this, and it is a good starting point.


What is incorrect about what I have just said? Perhaps all atheists don't believe/assume this; in which case, that's just fine, their welcome not to, and are welcome to take a position of extreme skepticism; I see no hypocracy in them saying that religious people shouldn't believe in god, in the absence of evidence.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is someone missing the point.

Dawkins (I imagine) doesn't not believe he is living in a computer simulation, he believes he is living in the universe that presents itself, through evidence.

If he is actually living in a computer system then it is a computer system designed to look like something else, ie it is a trick, a fabrication of evidence. And Dawkins can only go on the evidence. If some unknown entity is fiddling with the evidence then that isn't Dawkins problem.

I believe you are begging the question here. You are assuming that the perception of the universe is evidence of the universe. This is not an unreasonable position, but it is something you are believing without evidence, which doesn't improve the case against those who believe in a god without evidence.

Wicknight wrote: »

I would point out that that Dawkins, like all good scientists, does not say he is 100% certain that there is no gods, only that the alternative is far far more likely based on the evidence. There are is lots of evidence gods don't exist.

Evidence that a god, a non interactive one (was just looking through dawkins stuff, he says people who believe in things like this are called 'deists', I believe) does not exist? Surely this is not possible? (I have previously posted confining my query to these non interactive entities, I believe when dawkins takes aim at the god hypothesis he does similarly, as this is the hardest form of god to attack)

There is very little evidence they do (believers disagree, but that is maninly because what they count as evidence, ie "funny feelings" they have, isn't what most would consider proper evidence).

These gods of course, being super powerful, could be fiddling with the evidence. But again, just like the Matrix designed to look like it doesn't exist, we can only go on the world that is presented to us.

I'm not going down the line of noodly appendages fiddling evidence.
I'm just saying that atheists that believe in the existence of the external reality do so without evidence, yet they criticise deists for also believing in a higher power, because the deists have no evidence.

fergalr

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm not clear on the matter but I'll try to explain my position on this. It depends on the specific definition of God really. So there's a couple of ways of looking at it. There's no evidence for the existence of a culture-nonspecific God, nor is the concept testable or likely to have real world implications. Thus the existence of that vague God is irrelevant to me.

I would agree with what you say there. I will point out, though, that the existence of that 'vague' God would seem to have relevance to a lot of people, who believe in such a god, and also another group of people who are trying to figure out whether they should call themselves atheists or not.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

However, most Gods come with real-world implications. The positive assumption thus compels us to modify our behaviour. So we don't really have the same choices when it comes to the existence of any particular God as we do in the case of the nonspecific God or the reality question. We may dismiss a given God (such as the Judeo-Christian God) or accept it- but not regard it as irrelevant. Some of these implications are also things that we can test.

Yes, I agree with this - but again, I'm not interested in discussing these gods that we can test, which is why I'm examining these other ones, that are harder to argue against.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Assuming the universe is objectively real (or that its objective reality is irrelevant) has no particular implications. Although the converse might cause us to behave as though our actions are consequence-free or consequence-unpredictable, that is not necessarily the logical extension since the rejection of objective reality still leaves us with the appearance of consequence.

I agree with all of that too.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We can reject the vague God based on relevance and utility. We can reject more specific Gods on the basis of evidence.

I'm not 100% with that last sentence - do you mean we can reject specific gods who are supposed to intervene in the world due to a lack of evidence of their intervention?
If so, I am right with you.

I'm not saying the 'vague' god couldn't be rejected (as you said, with arguements of relevance and utility).
I'm just saying that it can't be rejected due to a lack of evidence, which is what dawkins was doing, and which I disagreed with...
...still curious to hear more argument on this though.

fergalr

I'm not sure we can consider (evidence that might not be evidence), as evidence, though, can we?
That's where I'm coming from.

leaba wrote: »

If there is any chance the evidence is valid it is a better proposition than the option for which there is no evidence.

You are using that as an argument that the world we perceive is real, and that we are not, for example, brains in tanks.
You have a piece of evidence - perception of world.
There are two hypothesis in play that could explain that:
1) The world is a real thing out there we perceive
2) The world is a simulated thing that we perceive

Perhaps, functionally, there are no difference between the two, as other posters have stated. I can accept this.
But you are saying that the perception of the world means 1) is more likely than 2).
I do not see that.

I'd understand you invoking a heuristic approach like ockams razor to try and persuade me that the simpler thing is true. However, when the entire world view is at stake, I'm not sure you can invoke a heuristic that is considered useful because it has turned out to be true based on real world experience...
Furthermore, I'm not sure that the 'perceive real world' is in fact simpler than the simulation.
Also, I can conceive of it being possible to simulate a vast number of universes (to a good enough facility to convince a human) within a single real universe, so I'm not even sure you can make a probabilistic argument about which it is more likely that we are in.

I remain unconvinced by your assertion, which I think is prejudiced by the traditional belief you have been taught, which is that you perceive a real external world.

I'm completely willing to be wrong on this point, but so far I don't see any evidence presented in favour of perceived reality being real.

Also...what Wicknight said. I really think you are missing the point. This has been stated several times in the thread

This confuses me.
How am I missing the point?
This is a thread I started, the point of which was to discuss the reasonableness of a specific claim made by a proponent of atheism.

The first person who stated I was missing the point, Rockbeer, implied I was missing the very general points of the relative merits of atheism vs theism. While that post was well written and interesting, it was a post on the functional utility of the different views, which is irrelevant to what I was discussing. As I said in my reply.

The second person who said I was missing the point, Wicknight, was talking about a more relevant point, but a different point to Rockbeer.
I believe I have clarified what I was saying so as to deflect Wicknights criticism in my reply written just now - however, this is a complex issue for me to think about, so I'm very willing to hear what he has to say back and be wrong.

I think your statement "I really think you are missing the point. This has been stated several times in the thread" is vaguely ad hominem, considering the circumstances.
I'm trying to work through a complex issue, and don't think I'm in any way unwilling to be corrected by better reason - I genuinely don't think the main thrust of my argument has yet being dealt with, and so will continue.

fergalr

ShooterSF wrote: »

This is how I'd see it. I'd have litle respect for someone with such odd beliefs but wouldnt have a personal problem with them until they wanted their beliefs taught in schools or affecting national laws etc. such as the catholic church does with it's beliefs. It's at this point I have a problem with other people's faiths.

I see where you are coming from here. I don't disagree with you that people wanting to enforce their beliefs on others, or legislating non-secularly is not a good thing.

ShooterSF wrote: »

People can have faith in whatever they want but don't go preaching, converting or attacking people who want the same level as evidence to believe that we needed to accept that reality exists (i.e some level,hell any would be a start)

This is where I somewhat disagree with you - in that you say 'the same level as evidence to believe that we needed to accept that reality exists' - how much evidence did we really need to believe that reality exists? Isn't it just something we believe because we consider it self evident, and useful, rather than because of the evidence? An argument similar to a deist might propose for their god, which is the crux of what I'm saying.

(Although I believe you could still attack the god as irrelevant or not useful, without hypocracy, but not on the basis of lacking evidence).

ShooterSF wrote: »

Oh and the jumping on bertie's head comment was pretty funny!

Ah, thanks

fergalr

Just to introduce another example of something that many atheists believe, again, I would say, without evidence, which is that human minds are sentient, more so than the sum of their parts; that other humans you meet also have self awareness... ...not wanting to get into a mind body discussion - and also, acknowledging that probably atheists out there who don't believe it.

Zillah

Is it not enough to approach it as if we are arguing within the context of this perceived reality?

Me: Your belief in God is silly because it has no evidence!
Nut: Aha! But you believe in an objective reality without evidence! That is also silly.
Me: Nuh uh! I don't care if this reality is an objective universe or a subjective brain feed. Within the context of its internal rules you still make no sense.

Sea Sharp

With regards the original post, the whole 'logical proof' thing.

It all comes down to what makes the most sense to one.
A lot of religious people acknoledge a lack of evidence of god, but whether or not they accept it, they believe in god because that is the explanation that makes most sense to them. They may make claim to sentements along the lines of "I know in my heart" etc, but fundamentally, they choose to believe in god because that makes the most sense to them based on the ideas that they have been thought.

Things that need to be taken into consideration :

• The effect of advertising. If you have been told that god exists from an early age, and have developed an understanding of the world based upon that assumption, then you will naturally feel opposed to anything which contradicts what you have allready accepted (and just simply 'know') to be true. The theory of god being responsible for the us and the world around us, is a better theorey than nothing, but it's the 21st century and we now have theories that make MUCH MORE SENSE.
• People seem to identify with the concept of 'good vs evil'. God vs the Devil seems to explain what they see in the world around them. In reality, we as people do bad things when pushed to, and good things in a similar fashion. We are animals that have instincts, simple as. To suggest that beings of much greater intelegence could be categorized as being 'good' or 'evil' is narrow minded to say the least.
• To suggest that the whole universe was created for us, and revolves around us, just to test whether or not we are good people in this life, and hence what happens to us in the next IS SO UNBELIEVABLY DISGUSTINGLY NARROW-MINDED that it's pathetic.
• There is no evidence to suggest that a higher being has communicated with humans on earth. There is however evidence of personality disorders which cause people to become delusional.

Religious people believe in god because that's what makes most sense to them, the way to make them see sense is to point this out to them, and subsequently reason with them based on the thoughts which make up their perspective.

The reason you will see creationists arguing to death about evolution, not winning and still refusing to acknoledge that their beleif in god is nothing more than silly, is because their belief in god does not have its roots in whether or not evolution happened.

For creationists, the existence of god is what makes the most LOGICAL sense to them.
What they refuse to accept is that this explanation is not logical. It can be hard to find the roots of their reasoning though.

In conclusion, sugesting that god made the universe is just a narrow-minded, lazy explanation.

fergalr

GothPunk wrote: »

When you compare the theists belief in god(s) and the atheists 'belief' in reality, you're not comparing like with like.

Ok, cool, lets see why you think that...

GothPunk wrote: »

When Dawkins makes the comment about believing things that have no evidence, he is talking about a potentially testable 'god hypothesis'. Regardless as to whether this 'reality' is as we accept it to be or is infact a computer simulation is not important, as the 'god hypothesis' makes comments about said reality. (That is to say, Dawkins is talking only about belief without evidence within the confines of this reality.)

You say he is only talking about belief without evidence within the confines of this reality - but how can he use what is in the confines of this reality to argue about the existence of a god outside the reality?
And he is including god outside this reality, within his scope.

I quote from Dawkins, God Delusion, page 60, under the chapter 'The God Hypothesis' where Dawkins sets out the sort of god he is talking about:

Nevertheless, let us follow Gould and pare our religion down to
some sort of non-interventionist minimum: no miracles, no
personal communication between God and us in either direction,
no monkeying with the laws of physics, no trespassing on the
scientific grass. At most, a little deistic input to the initial conditions
of the universe so that, in the fullness of time, stars, elements,
chemistry and planets develop, and life evolves.

So he definitely states he is dealing with a non interventionist god there, and then he goes on later to hammer theists for their lack of evidence for their god.

GothPunk wrote: »

To take the 'reality hypothesis' that you are proposing, it is not 'testable'.

Surely, neither is a non-interventionist god which exists outside the universe testable?

I don't see how dawkins can form a 'god hypothesis' if he includes gods like that. I don't see the answer to this in his book either?

GothPunk wrote: »

You are questioning the validity of our senses, as to whether what we percieve does in fact match up with reality. There is evidence of our reality, but you are questioning the validity of said evidence. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but that's just vapid philosophical fanwankery.

Yes, from a philosophical viewpoint, we have faith in our senses, and thus our evidence of reality. However, when you doubt our senses, reality becomes a free-for-all, anything is possible and you can't provedemonstrate it because what you are seeing/hearing/smelling could all be a trick/rose coloured glasses/smoke and mirrors. Our senses are all we have with which to percieve reality, outside of the evidence we collect using them there can be no debate, as nothing can be quantified or qualified.

I agree. It's a very useful thing to have faith in our senses.
That's how I operate.

But that faith in our senses is something we just believe without evidence for, as far as I can see.

And that is relevant to the discussion, because I'm trying to show that atheists do believe things they don't have evidence for.

GothPunk wrote: »

Let's take an old example: a court case. If you were on trial for murder, and there were two unrelated witnesses who could identify you as the killer, your defense lawyer could not then question the validity of our senses and the very fabric of reality itself to get you off. It's just not practical. In real life, people usually can't be imprisoned based on circumstantial evidence alone either - you can believe all you want that Ms.X killed Mr.Y, but without hard evidence you don't have a leg to stand on. This is one of the core arguments for the atheist viewpoint - cold hard evidence.

I have difficulty with how you go from the assertion that cold hard evidence is essential, to:

GothPunk wrote: »

Besides, everyone makes this leap of 'faith' (with evidence you don't seem to trust) regarding reality that you are using against atheists for thier derision of theists. Outside of metaphysics, there's no real debate there.

Now you are arguing based on popularity?
So, atheists need cold hard evidence, all the time, except for this leap of faith, but that's ok, because everyone makes this leap of faith?
That really isn't a terribly convincing argument to me.

I also don't think it's ok to just say:

GothPunk wrote: »

Outside of metaphysics, there's no real debate there.

to close the debate.
We are discussing the need for evidence in the existence of god.

Stuff thats normally just discussed within metaphysics is surely fair game here? I had to look up metaphysics on wikipedia: "Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science." - that seems a highly relevant to a discussion like this?

GothPunk wrote: »

However, not everyone makes the leap of faith without evidence that theists make. I think that's as simply as I can put my point.

Yes, I agree that not everyone makes that leap of faith, clearly.
However my point is that atheists do make some leaps of faith, without evidence.
For example, you just said that:

GothPunk wrote: »

Besides, everyone makes this leap of 'faith' (with evidence you don't seem to trust) regarding reality [...]

My point is that it's hard to criticise theists for leaps of faith about these big issues if atheists also make leaps of faith, about big issues, albeit different issues.

GothPunk wrote: »

It's really intellectually disingenuous to wave your arms mystically and say 'But you believe in evidence and reality, *spooky voice* oooooh'.

I don't believe I'm being disingenuous at all here, intellectually or otherwise. I'm being as sincere as I can in working through this, so I don't particularly appreciate that comment.

I don't understand what your saying here, you seem to be rubbishing my argument, saying 'spooky voice' and stuff, and I'm not really sure why?
I'm really trying to lay out these difficult issues as best I can, and deal with a lot of different angles from a lot of different posters here - it's great to get all the replies.
If you can provide me with reasons why you think I'm being disingenuous, I'll be happy to take them on board and try and deal with them?

GothPunk wrote: »

******
As a side note, would I be right in suggesting that many atheists are tired by this line of reasoning almost as much as religious non-reasoning? It seems that many atheists are atheists because of an evidence and logic based approach to understanding the world, and this metaphysical philosophy abandons both.

The metaphysical philosophy abandons both evidence and logic? Isn't that a bit harsh? Where is it illogical?

Are you trying to gather a lot of responses from people saying they are tired with reasoning like this?
I would ask you to start another thread if that is your goal, as I'm trying to have an discussion with people who are interested in this, rather than take a straw poll of people who don't want to talk about it, thanks.

******
It's also clear that when most people here are talking about 'proof' and 'evidence', that we're talking of the scientific variety, and thus an online dictionary is unlikely to be the best source.

I did say in my first few posts that I'm not a trained philosophy or theologian, just trying to grapple with and discuss some pretty complex issues. I also said my posts might lack rigor. I've also conceded, several times, I should have used evidence a few times in my first post when I said proof, and only appealed to the dictionary to try and show where I was coming from.
Apologies about any confusion.

fergalr

Zillah wrote: »

Is it not enough to approach it as if we are arguing within the context of this perceived reality?

Me: Your belief in God is silly because it has no evidence!
Nut: Aha! But you believe in an objective reality without evidence! That is also silly.
Me: Nuh uh! I don't care if this reality is an objective universe or a subjective brain feed. Within the context of its internal rules you still make no sense.

Nut: My god is outside this universe, and doesn't intervene in this universe, therefore isn't subject to this universes internal rules.
Me: You still shouldn't believe in it without evidence!
Nut: But you believe in things without evidence!


Your dialog is fine, if Nut's belief in God is for a God that's observable within this universe.

My problem is that Dawkins also says, quite clearly, he's attacking non-interventionist gods - gods that we wouldn't expect to see evidence of within this universe (because they don't intervene).
Therefore, they wouldn't violate the internal rules of the universe.

In a nutshell, how can you attack someone for believing in a god that there's no evidence of in the universe, if by definition of the god there's no evidence of the god in the universe, and when you also believe in things there's no evidence of in the universe.

AtomicHorror

fergalr wrote: »

I'm not saying the 'vague' god couldn't be rejected (as you said, with arguements of relevance and utility).
I'm just saying that it can't be rejected due to a lack of evidence, which is what dawkins was doing, and which I disagreed with...

Ok, forgive me if the following is crap. It's late and my mind is fried.

You may well have a point, though in terms of evidence and the vague God I've always taken the line that the lack of evidence allows us to dismiss on the basis of negligible likelihood of existence. Not impossibility but improbability so significant as to be no different in practical terms. We have no reason to doubt the objective reality or induction. They are not complex notions. But a God, or a non-testable spaghetti monster or non-detectable orbital teapot are all complex concepts. Without appropriately weighted evidence for them or their influence, it is irrational to assume their existence. The likelihood of their existence is negligible and can be dismissed on that basis.

fergalr

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

With regards the original post, the whole 'logical proof' thing.

It all comes down to what makes the most sense to one.
A lot of religious people acknoledge a lack of evidence of god, but whether or not they accept it, they believe in god because that is the explanation that makes most sense to them. They may make claim to sentements along the lines of "I know in my heart" etc, but fundamentally, they choose to believe in god because that makes the most sense to them based on the ideas that they have been thought.

That all makes sense to me.

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Things that need to be taken into consideration :

• The effect of advertising. If you have been told that god exists from an early age, and have developed an understanding of the world based upon that assumption, then you will naturally feel opposed to anything which contradicts what you have allready accepted (and just simply 'know') to be true. The theory of god being responsible for the us and the world around us, is a better theorey than nothing, but it's the 21st century and we now have theories that make MUCH MORE SENSE.

For theories like intelligent design and stuff, then yep, we have better scientific theories that now explain how we evolved, and make much more sense, like you say. That's not an argument against a higher power creating the universe, but anyway.

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

[*]People seem to identify with the concept of 'good vs evil'. God vs the Devil seems to explain what they see in the world around them. In reality, we as people do bad things when pushed to, and good things in a similar fashion. We are animals that have instincts, simple as. To suggest that beings of much greater intelegence could be categorized as being 'good' or 'evil' is narrow minded to say the least.

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

[*]To suggest that the whole universe was created for us, and revolves around us, just to test whether or not we are good people in this life, and hence what happens to us in the next IS SO UNBELIEVABLY DISGUSTINGLY NARROW-MINDED that it's pathetic.

That doesn't mean its wrong as a view though - but I hear ya - but anyway, that's not really relevant to what I'm discussing. There could be a billion other species out there, and the world could still be created by a higher power. I'm not arguing for any doctrine which would have said people were the only thing in the world, or anything that has a belief in heaven and hell...
I'm really just investigating a small point in an atheists criticism of religion...

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

[*]There is no evidence to suggest that a higher being has communicated with humans on earth. There is however evidence of personality disorders which cause people to become delusional.


Religious people believe in god because that's what makes most sense to them, the way to make them see sense is to point this out to them, and subsequently reason with them based on the thoughts which make up their perspective.

The reason you will see creationists arguing to death about evolution, not winning and still refusing to acknoledge that their beleif in god is nothing more than silly, is because their belief in god does not have its roots in whether or not evolution happened.

For creationists, the existence of god is what makes the most LOGICAL sense to them.
What they refuse to accept is that this explanation is not logical. It can be hard to find the roots of their reasoning though.

Well, I'm not really discussing creationists at all here - that's not really relevant to my thread at all. I don't see particular merit in the discussion of creationism.

In conclusion, sugesting that god made the universe is just a narrow-minded, lazy explanation.

Gosh, well, if your talking about the belief that it was made 6000 years ago or something, and that the fossil record was wrong, and carbon dating is a flawed process and stuff like that, then its certainly very hard to reconcile with common beliefs about reality and perception.

But if you believed some higher power created the universe pre big bang, I don't think people can provide a better argument against you than to say that there's no evidence for such things, or that such questions are meaningless within the context of human perception, which isn't quite the same as a refutation.

rockbeer

fergalr wrote: »

So, atheists need cold hard evidence, all the time, except for this leap of faith, but that's ok, because everyone makes this leap of faith?
That really isn't a terribly convincing argument to me.

Maybe you need to go and look up existentialism

Seriously, it is a convincing argument. There is a world of difference between accepting as evidence something that is universally experienced, recognized and relied on as against the random speculations of individuals based on nothing at all. Our senses are the evidence. They are a priori - without them there is nothing. It is quite disingenuous to compare the collective and universally acknowledged evidence of all our senses with the personal claims of random individuals. Of course it's true that on some level one is no more reliable than the other, but I have a simple test for this kind of argument: if you wouldn't live by it - and you've already said you wouldn't - then don't rely on it for a philosophical defence. To do so is ultimately empty posturing because you don't even believe it yourself.

In the end your argument is a straw man. You interpret Dawkins as saying people shouldn't believe in a non-interventionist, deist kind of god without evidence, but I think you've called it wrong. The issue isn't whether people should or shouldn't believe or disbelieve in such a god, but that it's pointless and irrelevant to do so. People can believe in one if they want, but why exactly would they want to?

It only makes any sense or serves any purpose to believe in an active, interventionist god who intrudes into this universe, and that - as you acknowledge - is where evidence is required. And this of course is exactly the kind of god nearly all religious people do believe in because such a belief has an impact on their lives.

On the other hand, the god you propose, leaving no trace in this universe, is located utterly in the realm of speculation. I don't have the God Delusion to hand but I think all Dawkins is really doing is pointing this out - he's saying that to invoke such a god serves no purpose. Since there's no evidence for it, such a belief is simply futile. You could of course say the same about believing in the physical universe on the evidence of your senses, but if you're at that point you should probably be thinking about tying yourself a noose or going out shopping for strong drugs.