24 Mar 12
5 edits
Originally posted by humy
“..There is no confusing of the two different probabilities because I only ever referred to one of them, the probability of the outcome. Of course the probability of the process of picking the lottery numbers is virtually guaranteed to provide an improbable outcome, but for my purposes that is irrelevant. ...”
but it is relevant! To see why, lets see what yo ople would find it harder to convince themselves that such action is excusable.
“...I see here that you consider God's existence "absurd". Did you choose to believe this? ...”
No, because I am rational. Not everyone is rational.
Again, you are begging the question. You are assuming that belief in God is irrational, that which you are setting out to prove. Don't be lulled by a confirmation bias into embracing fallacious logic! 🙂
__________
“...If all faith disappeared from the face of the Earth, borders would still remain, supply and demand would remain, wealth inequalities would remain, hatred would remain, conquest would remain, racism would remain, etc., etc. ...”
-and there would almost certainly be less evil actions for evil people would find it harder to convince themselves that such action is excusable.
Let me get this straight. Are you seriously saying that without religious faith, evil people wouldn't have any reason to do evil things? Please clarify.
25 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas[b]“...I see here that you consider God's existence "absurd". Did you choose to believe this? ...”
No, because I am rational. Not everyone is rational.
Again, you are begging the question. You are assuming that belief in God is irrational, that which you are setting out to prove. Don't be lulled by a confirmation ...[text shortened]... t religious faith, evil people wouldn't have any reason to do evil things? Please clarify.[/b]“...You are assuming that belief in God is irrational, ...”
I am not “assuming” but “acknowledging”.
“...that which you are setting out to prove ...”
actually, I was not exactly “ setting out to prove” that ( although I obviously know faith that there is a god IS irrational! ) but never mind.
I am trying to explain how one absurd belief ( in this case I used 'faith that there is a god' although this also applies to ANY absurd belief ) leads to other absurd beliefs so ANY absurd belief is dangerous even if it isn't intrinsically so because once you convince yourself of one then you can mere easily convince yourself of others some of which can be dangerous.
I had also argued ( earlier in this thread ) that faith that there is a god is immoral because of this.
But, if you also want supporting empirical evidence for this, have a look at:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistmoral.html
“...Let me get this straight. Are you seriously saying that without religious faith, evil people wouldn't have ANY reason to do evil things? ...” (my emphasis)
no, I meant nothing more than what I said i.e. “-and there would almost certainly be LESS evil actions for evil people would find it HARDER to convince themselves that such action is excusable. “ (my comment and emphasis)
the operative words here are “LESS” and “HARDER” so I clearly am not implying here “evil people wouldn't have ANY reason to do evil things” if they had no faith although they clearly will find it harder to find a ( generally irrational ) reason to do evil.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Mar 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasRationality has two components.
Again, you are begging the question. You are assuming that belief in God is irrational, that which you are setting out to prove. Don't be lulled by a confirmation bias into embracing fallacious logic! 🙂
First is to try to have as accurate and reliable view of reality as possible.
Second is to use logic and reason to devise the best way of achieving your goals.
The part we are interested in here is the first.
This is where the tools of science and skepticism are used to build as accurate a view of reality as possible and
this view is built on evidence from observation and experimentation.
As there is presently absolutely no evidence available for the existence of any god or gods or any supernatural
whatsoever, And indeed in many cases much counter evidence that goes against the existence of any god or gods
or the supernatural, It MUST be considered irrational to believe in a god or gods because rationality demands only
believing in things for which there is enough evidence to justify that belief.
Thus being rational in the face of the current evidence (or lack thereof) requires non-belief in god or gods.
This is the definition of atheism.
So to be rational requires being an atheist.
And as being rational or irrational are exclusive and exhaustive options it must therefore be true that any belief in
god or gods must be irrational. (not it might be possible to create a 'logical' argument for belief in that given the right set
of premises you could create a logically sound argument that leads to belief in god however those premises must be flawed
and/or unjustifiable given the current lack of evidence for god and so while the argument might be logical it can't be rational)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Mar 12
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo the problem here with your counter argument is that we know and observe that people get hit by lightning.
[b]-which is totally irrelevant since just such an unlikely outcome of this kind was expected...
I think you are proving my point for me.
Here's another example: P hears on the news that his best friend was struck by lightning and killed. The odds of being struck by lightning are 1/1,000,000 -- an improbable event. According to Hume's . ...[text shortened]... tened]... raordinarily low, we shouldn't, as you have argued, require extraordinary evidence.[/b]
Particularly when playing golf.
So if someone claims to have been struck by lightning or to have known someone who has been killed by lightning
it is not unreasonable to have a degree of trust in that person that they are telling the truth.
The degree of trust would relate to how well you know the person or news outlet and how reliable they have been
in the past and the degree of improbability of the event they are describing.
However there is no evidence of the existence of god or the supernatural and not one single verified documented case
of anyone EVER rising from the dead. (although there are plenty of mythological examples)
In this case the event you are talking about is not just a priori astronomically unlikely due to there not being a single
known case of it occurring in a set of around 100 billion deaths, but it also contradicts the known laws of physics.
The event in this case requires accepting as true the existence of the supernatural, which contradicts the known laws of
physics and is supported be precisely zero evidence.
It is thus not analogous to being told that someone was struck by lightning or won the lottery because we know that people
do get hit by lighting and do win the lottery.
Unlikely events are likely to happen in the vast array of events that occur on a daily basis.
Impossible events are NOT likely to happen because they are impossible.
According to all our current knowledge and evidence Jesus resurrection as described is impossible.
Thus you would have to have evidence that overturns what we currently know about the laws of nature that conclusively proves that
this event both could and did happen before belief in it is justified.
This is not true for someone being hit by lightning because we know people do get hit by lighting and it is not only not contradictory to
the known laws of physics, it is predicted by them. We expect people to get hit by lightning every so often.
We do not expect people to come back from the dead.
25 Mar 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieWe know how to use it, we know a great deal about its properties, yes this
i can see the jigsaw isnt working for you and has become far to literal. lets go back to electricity, we know almost everything about it but there are still things we dont know the same for gravity. now are you suggesting that because we dont know everything about electricity and gravity that we actually know nothing?
and everything else are just part of the universe we live in. Not at all saying
that because we don't know everything we know nothing. I've been clear on
my points that we do not know how all of this got here, there are a lot of
beliefs about it, and people due to their beliefs are making huge judgment
calls on what is important and how to judge what is more important than
others.
Kelly
25 Mar 12
Originally posted by PenguinWe can assume that right or wrong, having things working the way we want
Even so, if you have 10,000 pieces done and they all fit together and make a coherent picture, I think it would be reasonable to go forward assuming that those 10,000 are probably about right.
Even if the original puzzle later turns out to be a googleplex more, the above assumption is still a reasonable basis for proceeding.
--- Penguin
does not mean it is working the way we think.
Kelly
25 Mar 12
Originally posted by JS357I've used these examples before when talking about faith.Until you can establish conclusively that belief in God is unreasonable (i.e., not based on evidence or rational justification), you have no basis for claiming that the embrace of faith necessarily involves the refusal to exercise reason.
There is a strange shift in what is to be demonstrated, here. It may be that an "embrace of faith" is mor ...[text shortened]... ns exist in the Caribbean. Perhaps your challenge should be couched in more mundane terms.
We act out due to what we believe is true, we do so in good faith.
We walk on the ground believing it will always support us, that is an act of
faith that is not always true.
We walk out on balconies for the same reasons we believe we will be safe.
We give money or act on good faith when we enter deals with others, believing
they will hold up their end of the deal.
Walking in faith is simply acting out due to your beliefs that things will be as
you believe them to be.
People can do very evil things due to that yes, we are creatures of faith in and
out of religion.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are equating trust based on evidence and reason and faith based on no evidence
I've used these examples before when talking about faith.
We act out due to what we believe is true, we do so in good faith.
We walk on the ground believing it will always support us, that is an act of
faith that is not always true.
We walk out on balconies for the same reasons we believe we will be safe.
We give money or act on good faith when we ente ...[text shortened]... do very evil things due to that yes, we are creatures of faith in and
out of religion.
Kelly
without reason and the two are not equivalent.
Belief that a balcony wont collapse under me is not at all equivalent or comparable with
faith that god exists.
Claiming otherwise is the false equivalence fallacy.
When we are talking about faith as the act of believing without evidence or rational justification
then we are not talking about a concept that is equivalent to trust based on evidence.
The very thing that we are highlighting that is different (the 'without evidence'😉 is what makes
your examples different and incomparable from the faith we are discussing.
We have evidence and reasons for supposing that balconies will support our weight.
We don't have reasons or evidence for supposing that there is a god.
That is why you have to have blind faith to believe in god's.
When we talk about faith to mean belief in things without evidence then we are emphatically NOT
all 'creatures of faith'.
25 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“...having things working the way we WANT ...” (my emphasis)
We can assume that right or wrong, having things working the way we want
does not mean it is working the way we think.
Kelly
the way we might “WANT” things to work has nothing to do with how we KNOW things work.
We do not believe the scientific facts because we “want” those facts to be whatever they happen to be but rather because we know there is irrefutable EVIDENCE for those facts.
Our premise for our knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with what we “WANT” as you try and make out here but rather the premise is the evidence and reason.
25 Mar 12
Originally posted by humyactually, I was not exactly “ setting out to prove” that ( although I obviously know faith that there is a god IS irrational! ) but never mind.
“...You are assuming that belief in God is irrational, ...”
I am not “assuming” but “acknowledging”.
“...that which you are setting out to prove ...”
actually, I was not exactly “ setting out to prove” that ( although I obviously know faith that there is a god IS irrational! ) but never mind.
I am trying to explain how one absurd belief ( in this case ...[text shortened]... ough they clearly will find it harder to find a ( generally irrational ) reason to do evil.
Fair enough.
actually, I was not exactly “ setting out to prove” that ( although I obviously know faith that there is a god IS irrational! ) but never mind. I am trying to explain how one absurd belief ( in this case I used 'faith that there is a god' although this also applies to ANY absurd belief ) leads to other absurd beliefs...
Whether or not faith in God is irrational strikes at the core of your assertion of how faith in God leads to other irrational beliefs. If faith in God is found to be rational, your conclusion that faith in God is immoral falls apart. So, whether you set out to prove that faith in God is irrational or not, it is nevertheless a vital part of your overall argument. Without it your argument fails. Why should we accept your conclusion if your premises are faulty?
In fact, I would venture to say that your standard for what is rational and what is not is itself irrational. Namely, the logical positivism you have espoused concerning religious belief. Logical positivism asserts that only statements that can be verified by the scientific method can be deemed meaningful. Or, to put it in more Popperesque terms, only statements that can be falsified by the scientific method can be deemed meaningful. In other words, if you can't prove it scientifically, it is to be rejected outright. This is the basis on which you reject faith in God, is it not?
The problem with logical positivism is that it is self-refuting. Try proving scientifically that only statements that can be falsified by the scientific method are meaningful. You can't do it. Logically, then, your gold standard for rational belief -- whether or not something can be verified scientifically -- fails.
Wait, it gets worse. How would you respond to this claim: philosophical naturalism (the view that the natural world is all that there is) is based on faith. Can you prove, via the scientific method, that the natural world is all there is? Of course not. So what justification is there for believing, as you do, that naturalism is true? According to you, the logical positivist, there can be no justification for naturalism because it cannot be verified by the scientific method. Thus, the assertion that God doesn't exist must be faith-based. (How embarrassing...)
Perhaps you might try to argue that it is possible to make inferences based on the evidence of science, and thereby establish naturalism as a rational belief. Fine. Except you must also admit, then, that others are also allowed to make inferences based on scientific evidence in order to rationally justify belief in God. In which case, though, your argument in this thread would be rendered unsound, since a case for the rationality of God's existence is therefore possible.
the operative words here are “LESS” and “HARDER” so I clearly am not implying here “evil people wouldn't have ANY reason to do evil things” if they had no faith although they clearly will find it harder to find a ( generally irrational ) reason to do evil.
So, people without faith find it harder to find a reason to be immoral, because all of the irrational reasons for being immoral are somehow off limits to them?
In other words, an atheist will commit only rationally justified immoral acts. The problem is we have no reason to think this is true. What in principle is preventing the atheist from committing unjustified immoral acts, e.g., a hate crime, a crime of passion, murder, theft for personal gain, etc.? Nothing, of course. What is apparent is that it is entirely possible for one person to be rational in some instances and irrational in others. So, for example, an atheist can rationally reject God and yet be prone to irrational criminal behavior, while a theist can irrational believe in God (assuming faith in God is irrational) and yet be rationally incapable of committing evil -- and vice versa.
And then there is the question of whether or not there is such a thing as a rationally justified immoral act. After all, an immoral act is by definition unjustified. A man who steals a drug from a pharmacy in order to save his wife, although committing a crime, is nevertheless acting morally, provided his intentions aren't self-seeking. Immoral acts, on the other hand, proceed from bad intentions and/or have harmful consequences. So what would it mean for an immoral act to be justified?
As you can see, your arguments leave much to be desired.