Two assertions that I have not heard good responses for that I am interested to hear your thoughts on. Anyone who can convince of a counterargument wins my great respect for beating a collection of intelligent scientists and thinkers who have convinced me otherwise with their reasoning and evidence. This challenge is for agnostics as well, because not being sure about religions means that you must think they are reasonably valid, which I am debating against.
-Firstly, religions don't have empirical evidence. That is, some evidence that can be observed. This doesn't have to be witnessing something directly, just some measurement or factor that can be seen. Think I am wrong? Give me some then.
-Secondly, because religions don't have empirical evidence, they shouldn't be believed in at all because there is no reason to assume that they are true. Again, feel free to give me reasons why they should be believed.
- Preemptive responses to common arguments
God is often used to explain the universe by theists. The idea is how could the vast complexity of our world come about? It is too complex for us to assume it would spontaneously appear, but human design is something that we know is capable of creating otherwise non-existent complexity. What if a human like being created the universe?
This the argument from design. However there is one enormous, quite obvious hole in this argument: a God shaped hole. The problem with introducing an outside force to explain the complexity of existence is that by doing so, you are adding complexity to existence. The question remains: where is God’s god, where did god come from? There is two different resolutions, either God always existed or God is somehow spontaneously created, no other explanation has been proposed by theists.
In the case of infinite existence, the argument from design is immediately self-defeated, once we accept that possibility that there always was a something, we no longer need god to explain the universe: it becomes an unjustified assumption to involve god when there is no empirical evidence to support his existence.
In the case of spontaneous creation, likewise, god is no longer necessary to explain anything, being in fact more complex (“the ultimate Boeing 747”) than the universe would need to be when it first appeared (big bang theory- it all starts with a singularity). Plenty of other religious beliefs have similar lackings of explanation and reasoning.
We have every reason to suspect that religion is entirely artificial. The problem with putting faith in millennia old books is that a millennia old book has no guarantee of being right about anything. This applies not just to the bible or the Quran, but any religious scripture, any holy book that is supposed to reveal divine truths. In fact, we can suggest good reasons why such texts were created other than to reveal any mystical secrets and why people continually believe them despite the lack of evidence, further invalidation of religious texts as a source for reliable real world ideas. If a book saying something is a reason to believe it, then I look forward to why you don't believe in Harry Potter or Cthulhu.
Google it. Just, Google it. Read a little, you might learn something. Basic run over:
evolution is supported by annual discoveries in the fossil record (at least half of all fossils are transitionary), genetics (genetics is the mechanism of inheritance and genetic mutation is the cause of variation), breeding (domestication is artificial evolution) and species distribution.
Big bang theory is supported by cosmic background radiation, planetary and stellar redshift (they must be moving away, supporting universal expansion), relative proportions of light elements (helium and hydrogen are hugely abundant) and mathematical proof by theory of general relativity.
The origin of life has several competing but similar theories, the main division being between cosmozoan theory and biochemical evolution theory, which propose that either life originated natively on earth or was introduced by astrological bombardment. Either way, inorganic chemicals naturally react to form the first ever life, then evolution takes over. There is no doubt among biochemists that the most basic life could have originated by chance chemical reactions, the debate is how exactly it happened and whether early earth in particular had suitable conditions.
The universe doesn't need to make sense, the truth is the truth, no matter how incomprehensible. Quantum mechanics are not very comprehensible (they are famously so), but we CAN very clearly demonstrate their existence.
Religions are social constructs, they don't create morality, their morality IS societal morality. Religious beliefs reflect human behavioural trends. Besides, many religious texts hold very questionable moral content.
If it isn't formally published and peer reviewed, it's nothing more than an anecdote, virtually worthless. People claim to see divine visions or witness miracles in the same way people claim to see ghosts or cryptids- they cannot be relied upon.
I'm not sure where I fall on the theist/atheist scale but I'll give my two cents; I view religion as a form of personal philosophy, something I can reference in times of self-reflection when in need of guidance. Not necessarily because I believe they are true (I preface my random prayers with "If you are real/aware/ect. God...") but because I think they help me reflect and maintain certain "truths"; "Love your neighbor", self-critique, yadayada...
I tend to hold a viewpoint that if one's religious beliefs make them a better person then I don't see what's wrong with it, it's only when the elicited behavior becomes antagonistic or spiteful that I disapprove of it's influence. Personally I find it comforting to paray when I feel that situations are out of my control, for whatever reason, but to take it as an absolute truth, and whatever that entails? Seems wrong, not just because it's logically unsound, but it shows a lack of humility and empathy, two facets which I feel are important to being a positive influence on society.
That's an opinion I can respect, if it really honestly comforts you, then I suppose it's alright, society as a whole certainly gives reason for people to want to be religious at least in practice. I won't encourage that kind of thinking, but I won't condemn it. I respectfully disagree with that belief, but your entitled to your opinion. The important thing is discerning that religion should not hold back science or have a strong place of power in society, it should be limited to personal beliefs at best.
EDIT: meant to say 'condemn' not condone, corrected.
-Firstly, religions don't have empirical evidence. That is, some evidence that can be observed. This doesn't have to be witnessing something directly, just some measurement or factor that can be seen. Think I am wrong? Give me some then.
That is at least somewhat true. Remember that saying something does not have emperical evidence does not equal no evidence at all. Historical evidence there is a lot of and Historical evidence has a great tradition in Christianity.
But staying in line with the spirit of that assertion I would just like to say that science in of itself can have a great deal of influence of religion. I don't think the average non believer really realizes the great religious revival that the discovery of a non static universe had on religious thought.
Also Biblical archaeology is one of the best ways in which the scientific world intersects with the religious world. Stephen Jay Gould was wrong There is not non overlapping magisteria but rather a partial overlapping magisteria.
-Secondly, because religions don't have empirical evidence, they shouldn't be believed in at all because there is no reason to assume that they are true. Again, feel free to give me reasons why they should be believed.
This is something a verificationist / logical positivist would say. Ask yourself should this epistemological view be held because of its empirical evidence? Can any epistemological view be defended on a empirical basis? I don't think so. If you want to have a epistemology at least get one that makes your own epistemology possible.
Religious/supernatural experiences are not all that uncommon around the world, throughout most (possibly all) societies on Earth. It's certainly possible that those are all simply delusions, etc. It's also entirely possible that they're... not.
The same goes for the (all but mystical! ;)) experience of love. Yes, that too can in theory be reduced to biochemistry or what have you, or even flat out "proved to be nonexistent".
Some people prefer to believe that religious/supernatural experiences are, in fact, real. Others prefer to believe that they are not. Likewise, the experience of love. And other things that - arguably - have not yet been "nailed down" or "disproved" entirely, if at all.
@backgat
Name something non-religious and non-conceptual (e.g. morality) that you believe in without evidence.
Yes, I do think that not having evidence is plenty good reason not to believe something, why else should I believe it?
@greywyn
Their sheer possibility of something doesn't validate it as true whatsoever. Yes, theoretically any religion could be right. But is that likely? No. There is no reason to think that they are true, because they don't have empirical evidence, which would actually support religious claims. People can ultimately believe what they want, but I don't think they should believe something without the reasoning of evidence.
@backgat
A more comprehensive reply after a little research:
I am a verificationist in the sense that for the everything to which evidence based reasoning is applicable, nothing is valid unless it has good evidenced based reasoning. That is, for things like morality and spiritual meaning that have no basis in objective reality, evidence is arbitrary. But for mechanical, real things like the origin of the universe and existence of beings, evidence is required. This is simply because for such matters, there is an objective answer (based on the scientific method's philosophical assumptions, which are the only practical assumptions), but for some other things there is none. God is a testable hypothesis on objective observable reality, it's just something we have not yet been able to test.
I would put my agnostic point forward here: there may be no evidence of a God now, but who says there won't be in the future? We didn't have computers and Internet forums 200 years ago, but we do now. Maybe someone will fall through a wormhole and end up in God's Kingdom in the seventh dimension...
This challenge is for agnostics as well, because not being sure about religions means that you must think they are reasonably valid, which I am debating against.
-Firstly, religions don't have empirical evidence.
Nether does Hard Atheism.
If you're only going off of empirical evidence (and discounting holy texts as reliable eyewitness accounts), the only logical choice is True Agnosticism.*
-Secondly, because religions don't have empirical evidence, they shouldn't be believed in at all because there is no reason to assume that they are true. Again, feel free to give me reasons why they should be believed.
This would be accepting the Null Hypothesis, no true scientist would do this.
Just because you have insufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis, doesn't suddenly mean you've proven the reverse true. If the counterclaim is to be accepted as fact, it must face the same rigor as the claim. Disproving God runs into the same problems as proving God: insufficient evidence. *
*(Well, the depending on the definition of 'God.')
Religion is a kind of belief (not sure if belief system is the word, I'm not a philosopher).
Science is just another kind of belief. I hold the opinion that science is the best kind of belief: whatever the scientific community can prove, I believe as being closest thing to truth available at the moment. However, there's plenty of stuff scientific methods can't reach for now and some things that it might never reach, ever. For the things that there's not a scientific consensus, people use other methods of investigation to form their belief.
The idea that we should only believe the stuff science show us is VERY naive. It's the talk of people who worship scientists but have no experience on the field.
To say that anecdotes are "virtually worthless" is hilarious. I guess when a friend of yours says a certain restaurant is good you ask for a scientific evidence of restaurant quality or ignore the information entirely instead of giving a certain degree of trust to that anecdote.
@nawilih
Again, possibility is arbitrary. It's also possible that my hand will quantum tunnel through a doorknob spontaneously, but we don't give credence to that possibility given how extremely unlikely it is. The lack of absolute denial is not relevant other than to say that you should keep an open mind, and this is true for pretty much anything.
@taylor
Hard atheism in the sense of god 'must be wrong' is not logical in the same way as fundamentalist religiousness is. God is not impossible, just not worth supporting.
You don't need to disprove god to discredit god, it makes little difference. An explanation without basis is pretty much the same as one that has been disproven in most circumstances: both are not worth considering. To suggest that the lack of negative proof means that the only logical conclusion is true agnosticism is to suggest that we should also be agnostic about an infinite variety of mythical ideas, which is nonsense. The lack of evidence for them is plenty enough to discredit them without proof against them.
@italofoca
Religions aren't formed by investigation, they are formed by conclusion jumping.
I didn't say that science is the only way to validate ideas, just that it is virtually the only effective way when it comes to objective mechanical ideas. Day-to-day decision making and matters of subjectivity (art and morality mostly) are not included, but an explanation of the universe is the field of science. Answering such questions is the purpose of the scientific method. What makes the religious method comparable? Regions aren't outside of science, there are many religious ideas like the age of the earth, the origin of species and the geocentric model that science has actually disproven, as well the many other religious beliefs that can be firmly discredited by testing, such as the idea of soul.
Anecdotes are virtually worthless under the objective mechanical sensense that I mentioned just above. Even comparing the practice we use in daily life to what is required to answer fundamental questions about the universe is ridiculous.
I normally avoid topics such as these due to the animosity that is prevalent on the internet, but I'll give this a shot, I suppose. Fair warning, I am but an amateur in the realm of true philosophical debate - as I'm an undergrad philosophy and religion major.
...religious beliefs that can be firmly discredited by testing, such as the idea of soul.
I want to have a clear commentary to what you are positing, DJK, and I do not mean to sound antagonistic; however, where are your sources that souls do not exist?
An infinite deity as an explanation for creation, meaning said deity is no longer needed to explain the universe, assumes that that is said deity's only role in the universe. What leads you to this conclusion?
[edit]
Just noticed you point toward evidence of micro-evolution to use as evidence of the macro-evolutionist version of creation of life. I, personally, have yet to understand the reasoning behind this. Randomness does not beget order.
Two assertions that I have not heard good responses for that I am interested to hear your thoughts on. Anyone who can convince of a counterargument wins my great respect for beating a collection of intelligent scientists and thinkers who have convinced me otherwise with their reasoning and evidence. This challenge is for agnostics as well, because not being sure about religions means that you must think they are reasonably valid, which I am debating against.
-Firstly, religions don't have empirical evidence. That is, some evidence that can be observed. This doesn't have to be witnessing something directly, just some measurement or factor that can be seen. Think I am wrong? Give me some then.
-Secondly, because religions don't have empirical evidence, they shouldn't be believed in at all because there is no reason to assume that they are true. Again, feel free to give me reasons why they should be believed.
I'm going to offer you some thoughts, not necessarily counterarguments.
Does everything you believe in have empirical evidence to support it? If the lack of empirical evidence is the reason you do not believe in religion, then it stands to reason that if other things in your life lack empirical evidence you should also not believe in it either.
There are many things we might believe in despite lacking empirical evidence:
-Love, Hope, your emotions, your subjective experiences, coincidences you might find meaningful.
-Trust---trust in your family, in friends, trust in yourself.
The opposite is true.
-Negativity; cynicism. On what basis does one conclude it is time to assume a cynical posture, or a negative outlook?
On what basis do you have to be self-confident in your abilities? Do you measure yourself empirically? How do you know you can do something or not?
My guess is you probably make a lot of assumptions about yourself in the moment.
There is no shame in imparting faith to various elements in our lives as opposed to requiring empirical evidentiary support. In fact your life would probably become extremely dysfunctional if you placed a burden of evidence on all your intangible decisions.
What about your conclusions? Have you and a colleague ever encountered the same evidence, yet still drew different conclusions? What is your empirical evidence that your burden of proof is sufficient or that another person's might be deficient? Many times a person's burden of proof is a hunch, or a gut feeling.
In science, sometimes, the burden of evidence is 5 sigma, or five standard deviations. What's your burden of proof? Did you ever think about where it came from, or whether or not it was actually somewhat arbitrary, shaped on subjective needs particular to your personal life experiences.
Notice this is not an argument proving or offering evidence for religion. At best, it is a message to you to remain consistent in your demands for evidence. It's not logically consistent to place a high burden of evidence in some areas of your life but a lower evidentiary burden in others. ---and if it is? well that's a whole other can of worms, for you can then argue that religion deserves a lower burden of evidence, which is a whole other debate altogether.
The issue with the Russell's Teapot argument -again- comes down to what we're debating when we say "God."
As for the teapot itself, there are things we can intelligently say about it. Did the ancient Chinese have the ability to launch a teapot into orbit? What's the probability of it forming -molecule by molecule- as the planets coalesce? The answers to these questions allows us to accept the hypothesis there ISN'T a celestial teapot. The same kind of reasoning can be applied to the Greek Gods, as a quick survey of Mount Olympus reveals the absence of a divine dwelling. Such claims are -as you say- "easy to discredit;" as in, the Null Hypothesis CAN pass as the hypostasis and be accepted as fact.
However, as the "God" we are analyzing becomes more and more distant, it becomes harder and harder to discredit. You might be able to easily disprove the "man in the clouds," but you really can't knock on the pearly gates to see if anyone's home. You can show, to 3-sigma, there isn't a celestial teapot, but what about something as nebulous as 'heaven?' The Null Hypothesis can't be accepted as the hypothesis because BOTH lack evidence, either for or against.
The issue becomes even worse when 'God' simply becomes the "Prime mover," who belief or disbelief in is the fundamental difference between theism and atheism. Since we -at a very fundamental level- can't say what came before everything, all statements about time's origin are equally meaningless. It is just as unscientific to say "not God" as "God," since neither have even the merest hint of evidence to support it (unlike "not Zeus," which does have evidence, like a survey of Mount Olympus).
Thus, if we are to go solely off of empirical evidence and the scientific method, we have to conclude "we don't know" (the agnostic position) when dealing with the origins of the Universe. Not "we don't know, but probably not God" (the agnostic atheist position), and not "we don't know, but probably God," (the agnostic theist position), just simply
Taylor, imagine you come across an unexplained physical phenomenon. And somebody guesses, completely out of the blue, that the explanation for it is sea turtles. You have absolutely no evidence for or against this hypothesis, because you've literally just observed it. Are you really going to prefer "I don't know" over "I don't know, but probably not sea turtles"? Are you willing to privilege a completely random guess that highly? Because that's what the God hypothesis is: a completely random guess. The agnostic atheist says "I don't know, but probably not God" in exactly the same way he says "I don't know, but probably not X" for all X proposed without evidence. With an infinitude of possible explanations, what are the odds that a guesser is going to guess the correct one by pure chance? Very small. Hence: "probably not".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Are you really going to prefer "I don't know" over "I don't know, but probably not sea turtles"? Are you willing to privilege a completely random guess that highly?
Umm... "we don't know" isn't ranking ANYTHING 'high.' But, saying 'probably not that' IS ranking a claim higher than other claims, mainly the 'not that' claim. If we can arbitrarily rule out possibilities, we could simply use iteration and rule out ALL possibilities. It's "probably not" caused by anything.
If we can arbitrarily rule out possibilities, we could simply use iteration and rule out ALL possibilities. It's "probably not" caused by anything.
"Iteration"? No, fallacy of composition. If I roll a d20, it's probably not going to land on the number 1. It's also probably not going to land on the number 2. And so on and so forth. It does not follow from this that it's probably not going to land on any number.
Without knowing anything, on what bases are you ruling out sea turtles?
I'm not "ruling out" sea turtles. Those are your words, not mine. What I'm saying is that, out of all the things in the universe it could possibly be, the odds that we pick "sea turtles" out of a hat and we happen to be right are miniscule. Our investigations should not privilege the hypothesis of sea turtles. We should not start paying any particular attention to sea turtles until that's where the evidence leads us. We do not need to write books upon books about the great unsolved question of whether or not sea turtles did it.
@highroller
Morality is a culturally generated concept, it's not something you can test or measure, it's something to be thought. It's subjective and immaterial.
@Lycodrake
The idea of a soul can be discredited by the complete lack of any detectable thing that fits the description. The composition of the human being is entirely known (within reason) and there is no chemical or energy that functions in the way a soul does. Ergo, the existence of a soul is not a valid claim, other than in a poetic sense.
An infinite deity as an explanation for creation, meaning said deity is no longer needed to explain the universe, assumes that that is said deity's only role in the universe. What leads you to this conclusion?
I was speaking specifically against the argument from the design. The point is that if you accept the idea of infinite existence to explain god, then you can equally posit the same thing for the universe, so the argument that a designer is the only good explanation is totally invalid. The same applies for any other explanation of God's origin. Trying to prove the existence of a complex being by saying that it's the only explanation for other complexity is just regressing the area that needs explanation, it doesn't actually explain anything, other than why things look designed, which is better explained by science due to the more complete explanation offered of the origin of existence (quantum physics is mainly used currenly).
@TomCat26
I already clarified this. It's simple: for all things to which evidence based reasoning is applicable and practical, there is no substitute. Scientific method is designed to find objective explanations for everything that it can, to posit something outside it but within its territory is therefore to question it's validity. Day to day decisions are not truths, so science doesn't need apply, art and spirituality are subjective so the same is true, philosophy deals with immaterial and subjective things, so is also not scientifically bound.
But many religious beliefs including Gods are theoretically testable (or in some cases, have been tested, providing scientific disproof), objective, potential truth, so science is applicable. Therefore, you need either scientific support or a very, very good explanation for why you don't need science, which are the two things I am asking for.
@TomCat26
I already clarified this. It's simple: for all things to which evidence based reasoning is applicable and practical, there is no substitute. Scientific method is designed to find objective explanations for everything that it can, to posit something outside it but within its territory is therefore to question it's validity. Day to day decisions are not truths, so science doesn't need apply, art and spirituality are subjective so the same is true, philosophy deals with immaterial and subjective things, so is also not scientifically bound.
But many religious beliefs including Gods are theoretically testable (or in some cases, have been tested, providing scientific disproof), objective, potential truth, so science is applicable. Therefore, you need either scientific support or a very, very good explanation for why you don't need science, which are the two things I am asking for.
Whenever you would do an experiment that would prove or disprove his existance, the flying spaghetti monster changes the result with his noodly apendage.
That aside, you could easily have a universe created by a god and have it not currently scientifically testable.
And historical record is proof of a sort, although obviously not high quality.
@Lycodrake
The idea of a soul can be discredited by the complete lack of any detectable thing that fits the description. The composition of the human being is entirely known (within reason) and there is no chemical or energy that functions in the way a soul does. Ergo, the existence of a soul is not a valid claim, other than in a poetic sense.
This entire statement confirms that you do not believe in the potential metaphysical and that all existential questions are moot for you. Demanding empirical evidence to answer such things as "is there a god?", "is there an afterlife?", etc. is counter-intuitive.
[edit]
You seem to be under the assumption that science and "philosophy and religion" cannot both explain the universe, and that only one must be true. Odd.
@lycodrake
Metaphysics is by definition outside testing and observation and therefore fundamentally invalid as explanation. The claim that something is metaphysical is equivalent to saying it is not worthy of debate except by philosophers, metaphysics hold no basis in evidence, only in sheer possibility, which has already been discussed andin this thread and the conclusion is clearly that possibility is mostly arbitrary: burden of proof is positive. Metaphysics is the admission to not having an argument and not actually being able to make one. We can discount the metaphysical explanation of the soul on this basis, so the soul is discredited.
I would argue precisely the opposite to the proposition that science analysing religious beliefs is counterintuitive. I say it is counter intuitive to ignore the lack of empirical evidence as a discrediting of a scientifically relevant idea.
On the topic of science vs philosophy, there is no conflict nor do I think that only one is 'true'. This is because philosophy, as stated before, commonly and fundamentally deals with subjective and immaterial things, which are by definition outside science. To posit that religion fits, therefore, under philosophy is to abandon any claims of an objective truth, once philosophy starts to unravel the certainty of virtually everything by making no assumptions, unlike science which is based on reasonable and practical assumptions, but that are nonetheless assumptions. Science and philosophy fit, but religion does not because it makes unsubstantiated claims and has not yet regressed to the point of a purely philosophical explanation, which would allow us to easily ignore it.
@TomCat26
I already clarified this. It's simple: for all things to which evidence based reasoning is applicable and practical, there is no substitute. Scientific method is designed to find objective explanations for everything that it can, to posit something outside it but within its territory is therefore to question it's validity. Day to day decisions are not truths, so science doesn't need apply, art and spirituality are subjective so the same is true, philosophy deals with immaterial and subjective things, so is also not scientifically bound.
But many religious beliefs including Gods are theoretically testable (or in some cases, have been tested, providing scientific disproof), objective, potential truth, so science is applicable. Therefore, you need either scientific support or a very, very good explanation for why you don't need science, which are the two things I am asking for.
Whenever you would do an experiment that would prove or disprove his existance, the flying spaghetti monster changes the result with his noodly apendage.
That aside, you could easily have a universe created by a god and have it not currently scientifically testable.
Possibility does not warrant consideration. You appear to have missed the memo of much of this thread: burden of proof is positive.
-
And about historical evidence: it's not very good nor does it have anything to do with the existence of god as a supreme being and designer, that is not a matter for which historical evidence is meaningful because that is a matter of science.
-Firstly, religions don't have empirical evidence. That is, some evidence that can be observed. This doesn't have to be witnessing something directly, just some measurement or factor that can be seen. Think I am wrong? Give me some then.
-Secondly, because religions don't have empirical evidence, they shouldn't be believed in at all because there is no reason to assume that they are true. Again, feel free to give me reasons why they should be believed.
-
Preemptive responses to common arguments
God is often used to explain the universe by theists. The idea is how could the vast complexity of our world come about? It is too complex for us to assume it would spontaneously appear, but human design is something that we know is capable of creating otherwise non-existent complexity. What if a human like being created the universe?
This the argument from design. However there is one enormous, quite obvious hole in this argument: a God shaped hole. The problem with introducing an outside force to explain the complexity of existence is that by doing so, you are adding complexity to existence. The question remains: where is God’s god, where did god come from? There is two different resolutions, either God always existed or God is somehow spontaneously created, no other explanation has been proposed by theists.
In the case of infinite existence, the argument from design is immediately self-defeated, once we accept that possibility that there always was a something, we no longer need god to explain the universe: it becomes an unjustified assumption to involve god when there is no empirical evidence to support his existence.
In the case of spontaneous creation, likewise, god is no longer necessary to explain anything, being in fact more complex (“the ultimate Boeing 747”) than the universe would need to be when it first appeared (big bang theory- it all starts with a singularity). Plenty of other religious beliefs have similar lackings of explanation and reasoning.
We have every reason to suspect that religion is entirely artificial. The problem with putting faith in millennia old books is that a millennia old book has no guarantee of being right about anything. This applies not just to the bible or the Quran, but any religious scripture, any holy book that is supposed to reveal divine truths. In fact, we can suggest good reasons why such texts were created other than to reveal any mystical secrets and why people continually believe them despite the lack of evidence, further invalidation of religious texts as a source for reliable real world ideas. If a book saying something is a reason to believe it, then I look forward to why you don't believe in Harry Potter or Cthulhu.
Google it. Just, Google it. Read a little, you might learn something. Basic run over:
evolution is supported by annual discoveries in the fossil record (at least half of all fossils are transitionary), genetics (genetics is the mechanism of inheritance and genetic mutation is the cause of variation), breeding (domestication is artificial evolution) and species distribution.
Big bang theory is supported by cosmic background radiation, planetary and stellar redshift (they must be moving away, supporting universal expansion), relative proportions of light elements (helium and hydrogen are hugely abundant) and mathematical proof by theory of general relativity.
The origin of life has several competing but similar theories, the main division being between cosmozoan theory and biochemical evolution theory, which propose that either life originated natively on earth or was introduced by astrological bombardment. Either way, inorganic chemicals naturally react to form the first ever life, then evolution takes over. There is no doubt among biochemists that the most basic life could have originated by chance chemical reactions, the debate is how exactly it happened and whether early earth in particular had suitable conditions.
The universe doesn't need to make sense, the truth is the truth, no matter how incomprehensible. Quantum mechanics are not very comprehensible (they are famously so), but we CAN very clearly demonstrate their existence.
Religions are social constructs, they don't create morality, their morality IS societal morality. Religious beliefs reflect human behavioural trends. Besides, many religious texts hold very questionable moral content.
-
Debate away!
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I tend to hold a viewpoint that if one's religious beliefs make them a better person then I don't see what's wrong with it, it's only when the elicited behavior becomes antagonistic or spiteful that I disapprove of it's influence. Personally I find it comforting to paray when I feel that situations are out of my control, for whatever reason, but to take it as an absolute truth, and whatever that entails? Seems wrong, not just because it's logically unsound, but it shows a lack of humility and empathy, two facets which I feel are important to being a positive influence on society.
EDIT: meant to say 'condemn' not condone, corrected.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
That is at least somewhat true. Remember that saying something does not have emperical evidence does not equal no evidence at all. Historical evidence there is a lot of and Historical evidence has a great tradition in Christianity.
But staying in line with the spirit of that assertion I would just like to say that science in of itself can have a great deal of influence of religion. I don't think the average non believer really realizes the great religious revival that the discovery of a non static universe had on religious thought.
Also Biblical archaeology is one of the best ways in which the scientific world intersects with the religious world. Stephen Jay Gould was wrong There is not non overlapping magisteria but rather a partial overlapping magisteria.
This is something a verificationist / logical positivist would say. Ask yourself should this epistemological view be held because of its empirical evidence? Can any epistemological view be defended on a empirical basis? I don't think so. If you want to have a epistemology at least get one that makes your own epistemology possible.
The same goes for the (all but mystical! ;)) experience of love. Yes, that too can in theory be reduced to biochemistry or what have you, or even flat out "proved to be nonexistent".
Some people prefer to believe that religious/supernatural experiences are, in fact, real. Others prefer to believe that they are not. Likewise, the experience of love. And other things that - arguably - have not yet been "nailed down" or "disproved" entirely, if at all.
Name something non-religious and non-conceptual (e.g. morality) that you believe in without evidence.
Yes, I do think that not having evidence is plenty good reason not to believe something, why else should I believe it?
@greywyn
Their sheer possibility of something doesn't validate it as true whatsoever. Yes, theoretically any religion could be right. But is that likely? No. There is no reason to think that they are true, because they don't have empirical evidence, which would actually support religious claims. People can ultimately believe what they want, but I don't think they should believe something without the reasoning of evidence.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
A more comprehensive reply after a little research:
I am a verificationist in the sense that for the everything to which evidence based reasoning is applicable, nothing is valid unless it has good evidenced based reasoning. That is, for things like morality and spiritual meaning that have no basis in objective reality, evidence is arbitrary. But for mechanical, real things like the origin of the universe and existence of beings, evidence is required. This is simply because for such matters, there is an objective answer (based on the scientific method's philosophical assumptions, which are the only practical assumptions), but for some other things there is none. God is a testable hypothesis on objective observable reality, it's just something we have not yet been able to test.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If you're only going off of empirical evidence (and discounting holy texts as reliable eyewitness accounts), the only logical choice is True Agnosticism.*
This would be accepting the Null Hypothesis, no true scientist would do this.
Just because you have insufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis, doesn't suddenly mean you've proven the reverse true. If the counterclaim is to be accepted as fact, it must face the same rigor as the claim. Disproving God runs into the same problems as proving God: insufficient evidence. *
*(Well, the depending on the definition of 'God.')
Science is just another kind of belief. I hold the opinion that science is the best kind of belief: whatever the scientific community can prove, I believe as being closest thing to truth available at the moment. However, there's plenty of stuff scientific methods can't reach for now and some things that it might never reach, ever. For the things that there's not a scientific consensus, people use other methods of investigation to form their belief.
The idea that we should only believe the stuff science show us is VERY naive. It's the talk of people who worship scientists but have no experience on the field.
To say that anecdotes are "virtually worthless" is hilarious. I guess when a friend of yours says a certain restaurant is good you ask for a scientific evidence of restaurant quality or ignore the information entirely instead of giving a certain degree of trust to that anecdote.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Again, possibility is arbitrary. It's also possible that my hand will quantum tunnel through a doorknob spontaneously, but we don't give credence to that possibility given how extremely unlikely it is. The lack of absolute denial is not relevant other than to say that you should keep an open mind, and this is true for pretty much anything.
@taylor
Hard atheism in the sense of god 'must be wrong' is not logical in the same way as fundamentalist religiousness is. God is not impossible, just not worth supporting.
You don't need to disprove god to discredit god, it makes little difference. An explanation without basis is pretty much the same as one that has been disproven in most circumstances: both are not worth considering. To suggest that the lack of negative proof means that the only logical conclusion is true agnosticism is to suggest that we should also be agnostic about an infinite variety of mythical ideas, which is nonsense. The lack of evidence for them is plenty enough to discredit them without proof against them.
@italofoca
Religions aren't formed by investigation, they are formed by conclusion jumping.
I didn't say that science is the only way to validate ideas, just that it is virtually the only effective way when it comes to objective mechanical ideas. Day-to-day decision making and matters of subjectivity (art and morality mostly) are not included, but an explanation of the universe is the field of science. Answering such questions is the purpose of the scientific method. What makes the religious method comparable? Regions aren't outside of science, there are many religious ideas like the age of the earth, the origin of species and the geocentric model that science has actually disproven, as well the many other religious beliefs that can be firmly discredited by testing, such as the idea of soul.
Anecdotes are virtually worthless under the objective mechanical sensense that I mentioned just above. Even comparing the practice we use in daily life to what is required to answer fundamental questions about the universe is ridiculous.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I want to have a clear commentary to what you are positing, DJK, and I do not mean to sound antagonistic; however, where are your sources that souls do not exist?
An infinite deity as an explanation for creation, meaning said deity is no longer needed to explain the universe, assumes that that is said deity's only role in the universe. What leads you to this conclusion?
[edit]
Just noticed you point toward evidence of micro-evolution to use as evidence of the macro-evolutionist version of creation of life. I, personally, have yet to understand the reasoning behind this. Randomness does not beget order.
EDH: GWCaptain Sisay
I'm going to offer you some thoughts, not necessarily counterarguments.
Does everything you believe in have empirical evidence to support it? If the lack of empirical evidence is the reason you do not believe in religion, then it stands to reason that if other things in your life lack empirical evidence you should also not believe in it either.
There are many things we might believe in despite lacking empirical evidence:
-Love, Hope, your emotions, your subjective experiences, coincidences you might find meaningful.
-Trust---trust in your family, in friends, trust in yourself.
The opposite is true.
-Negativity; cynicism. On what basis does one conclude it is time to assume a cynical posture, or a negative outlook?
On what basis do you have to be self-confident in your abilities? Do you measure yourself empirically? How do you know you can do something or not?
My guess is you probably make a lot of assumptions about yourself in the moment.
There is no shame in imparting faith to various elements in our lives as opposed to requiring empirical evidentiary support. In fact your life would probably become extremely dysfunctional if you placed a burden of evidence on all your intangible decisions.
What about your conclusions? Have you and a colleague ever encountered the same evidence, yet still drew different conclusions? What is your empirical evidence that your burden of proof is sufficient or that another person's might be deficient? Many times a person's burden of proof is a hunch, or a gut feeling.
In science, sometimes, the burden of evidence is 5 sigma, or five standard deviations. What's your burden of proof? Did you ever think about where it came from, or whether or not it was actually somewhat arbitrary, shaped on subjective needs particular to your personal life experiences.
Notice this is not an argument proving or offering evidence for religion. At best, it is a message to you to remain consistent in your demands for evidence. It's not logically consistent to place a high burden of evidence in some areas of your life but a lower evidentiary burden in others. ---and if it is? well that's a whole other can of worms, for you can then argue that religion deserves a lower burden of evidence, which is a whole other debate altogether.
As for the teapot itself, there are things we can intelligently say about it. Did the ancient Chinese have the ability to launch a teapot into orbit? What's the probability of it forming -molecule by molecule- as the planets coalesce? The answers to these questions allows us to accept the hypothesis there ISN'T a celestial teapot. The same kind of reasoning can be applied to the Greek Gods, as a quick survey of Mount Olympus reveals the absence of a divine dwelling. Such claims are -as you say- "easy to discredit;" as in, the Null Hypothesis CAN pass as the hypostasis and be accepted as fact.
However, as the "God" we are analyzing becomes more and more distant, it becomes harder and harder to discredit. You might be able to easily disprove the "man in the clouds," but you really can't knock on the pearly gates to see if anyone's home. You can show, to 3-sigma, there isn't a celestial teapot, but what about something as nebulous as 'heaven?' The Null Hypothesis can't be accepted as the hypothesis because BOTH lack evidence, either for or against.
The issue becomes even worse when 'God' simply becomes the "Prime mover," who belief or disbelief in is the fundamental difference between theism and atheism. Since we -at a very fundamental level- can't say what came before everything, all statements about time's origin are equally meaningless. It is just as unscientific to say "not God" as "God," since neither have even the merest hint of evidence to support it (unlike "not Zeus," which does have evidence, like a survey of Mount Olympus).
Thus, if we are to go solely off of empirical evidence and the scientific method, we have to conclude "we don't know" (the agnostic position) when dealing with the origins of the Universe. Not "we don't know, but probably not God" (the agnostic atheist position), and not "we don't know, but probably God," (the agnostic theist position), just simply
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Without knowing anything, on what bases are you ruling out sea turtles?
It could be a very sea turtle related phenomenon.
But--for you BS--I would take a slightly different tack. Let us take a look at a sentence I wrote in the post you are objecting to:
Does your highly tuned logical sense see anything wrong with making statements about "what came before everything?"
"Iteration"? No, fallacy of composition. If I roll a d20, it's probably not going to land on the number 1. It's also probably not going to land on the number 2. And so on and so forth. It does not follow from this that it's probably not going to land on any number.
I'm not "ruling out" sea turtles. Those are your words, not mine. What I'm saying is that, out of all the things in the universe it could possibly be, the odds that we pick "sea turtles" out of a hat and we happen to be right are miniscule. Our investigations should not privilege the hypothesis of sea turtles. We should not start paying any particular attention to sea turtles until that's where the evidence leads us. We do not need to write books upon books about the great unsolved question of whether or not sea turtles did it.
So you're saying that atheism is logically necessary? That doesn't square with all the other stuff you've said.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Morality is a culturally generated concept, it's not something you can test or measure, it's something to be thought. It's subjective and immaterial.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The idea of a soul can be discredited by the complete lack of any detectable thing that fits the description. The composition of the human being is entirely known (within reason) and there is no chemical or energy that functions in the way a soul does. Ergo, the existence of a soul is not a valid claim, other than in a poetic sense.
I was speaking specifically against the argument from the design. The point is that if you accept the idea of infinite existence to explain god, then you can equally posit the same thing for the universe, so the argument that a designer is the only good explanation is totally invalid. The same applies for any other explanation of God's origin. Trying to prove the existence of a complex being by saying that it's the only explanation for other complexity is just regressing the area that needs explanation, it doesn't actually explain anything, other than why things look designed, which is better explained by science due to the more complete explanation offered of the origin of existence (quantum physics is mainly used currenly).
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I already clarified this. It's simple: for all things to which evidence based reasoning is applicable and practical, there is no substitute. Scientific method is designed to find objective explanations for everything that it can, to posit something outside it but within its territory is therefore to question it's validity. Day to day decisions are not truths, so science doesn't need apply, art and spirituality are subjective so the same is true, philosophy deals with immaterial and subjective things, so is also not scientifically bound.
But many religious beliefs including Gods are theoretically testable (or in some cases, have been tested, providing scientific disproof), objective, potential truth, so science is applicable. Therefore, you need either scientific support or a very, very good explanation for why you don't need science, which are the two things I am asking for.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Whenever you would do an experiment that would prove or disprove his existance, the flying spaghetti monster changes the result with his noodly apendage.
That aside, you could easily have a universe created by a god and have it not currently scientifically testable.
And historical record is proof of a sort, although obviously not high quality.
This entire statement confirms that you do not believe in the potential metaphysical and that all existential questions are moot for you. Demanding empirical evidence to answer such things as "is there a god?", "is there an afterlife?", etc. is counter-intuitive.
[edit]
You seem to be under the assumption that science and "philosophy and religion" cannot both explain the universe, and that only one must be true. Odd.
EDH: GWCaptain Sisay
Metaphysics is by definition outside testing and observation and therefore fundamentally invalid as explanation. The claim that something is metaphysical is equivalent to saying it is not worthy of debate except by philosophers, metaphysics hold no basis in evidence, only in sheer possibility, which has already been discussed andin this thread and the conclusion is clearly that possibility is mostly arbitrary: burden of proof is positive. Metaphysics is the admission to not having an argument and not actually being able to make one. We can discount the metaphysical explanation of the soul on this basis, so the soul is discredited.
I would argue precisely the opposite to the proposition that science analysing religious beliefs is counterintuitive. I say it is counter intuitive to ignore the lack of empirical evidence as a discrediting of a scientifically relevant idea.
On the topic of science vs philosophy, there is no conflict nor do I think that only one is 'true'. This is because philosophy, as stated before, commonly and fundamentally deals with subjective and immaterial things, which are by definition outside science. To posit that religion fits, therefore, under philosophy is to abandon any claims of an objective truth, once philosophy starts to unravel the certainty of virtually everything by making no assumptions, unlike science which is based on reasonable and practical assumptions, but that are nonetheless assumptions. Science and philosophy fit, but religion does not because it makes unsubstantiated claims and has not yet regressed to the point of a purely philosophical explanation, which would allow us to easily ignore it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Possibility does not warrant consideration. You appear to have missed the memo of much of this thread: burden of proof is positive.
-
And about historical evidence: it's not very good nor does it have anything to do with the existence of god as a supreme being and designer, that is not a matter for which historical evidence is meaningful because that is a matter of science.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice