Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hi RAZD, Without going into the obvious default argument - how do you know I haven't heard of it? - lets assume I haven't. I would say that I'd wait to hear it before I can know what my position would be. And this would be true for things that I claim don't exists.But I have not said "X" doesn't exist, in fact, I don't even get to the question yet. What I'd like to know is, for what reason is the question being asked?If the question was, do I believe there is life on other planets? I'd first like to know, for what reason was that question even needed? Some will say, well there's life here, naturally emerged from basic elements found on many other terestrial planets, so it's a fair question to ask whether life exists elsewhere.Personally I feel that's a good reason for the question.But likewise, if I'm asked, do I believe there's a teapot orbiting Sirius? I again would ask (given that we are applying a scientific methodology), for what reason is that question even needed?The answer would have to follow the same logic that was applied to the life on other planets question. Until that's logically established, then the question merits no answer. And, find something currently studied in science that doesn't apply that same logic.I don't have to be agnostic for questions like the teapot (or god) because there is no logical reason to even ask the question. Neither are yours ... your point? Thank you. ...of an established phenomenon. There must be something for which evidence is being gathered, right? I agree with all of that, but you ignored my point.All of the above that you mention is done, in that manner, however, it can only be done once a phenomenon is established to have occured. If we have no phenomenon in question, then we have no reason for a hypothesis, let alone a need to gather evidence to support the theory. Do I need to put a sad face here to express how much it hurts to read that I don't care? lolAs I suspected though, you didn't directly answer the question. Again, what phenomenon has been established to have occured for which "god" is a possible hypothesis?I suspect that you won't directly answer it again, but to me (and I can only assume other atheist as well) this is the crux of the matter - Why are humans trying to find an answer to a question that they have no objective reason to ask?- Oni

So you continue to assert that the possible existence of as yet undiscovered species on Earth, or the possible existence of life on other planets are both equally as objectively unevidenced as the possible existence of gods. You remain simply unable to distinguish between objectively evidenced possibilities and objectively evidenced actualities. There is no objectively evidenced reason to think gods even might exist. Which part of that do you honestly not understand?**sigh**If you ever manage to overcome your cognitive blindspot regarding evidenced possibilities you will come to realise that the possibility of gods being human inventions is infinitely more objectively evidenced as a possibility than the totally objectively unevidenced possibility that gods actually exist.You may then at least understand (whether you agree with it or not) what it is that I have been saying to you in all those previous threads. You may then stop conflating evidenced based arguments regarding possibility, likelihood and mutually exclusive alternatives with your favoured strawman of absolute statements of logical certitude which no-one is making or has ever made at any point in these discussions.But until that happy day you are destined to misunderstand and misrepresent those whose arguments you seem incapable of comprehending. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi onifre,While I respect both yours and RAZD's excellent debating skills I think your argument is really based on a disagreement of what constitutes relevance. This, I think, is the main disagreement your two-sided discussion hinges on. I can't speak for RAZD of course, but I doubt if he'd consider himself an agnostic regarding the purple pixie that lives in my closet. In this example, the existence of the pixie is simply not a relevant issue. No evidence has ever suggested its existence, nor does its existence help explain the evidence that we have. Furthermore, nobody is claiming it exists.I think where you differ is that RAZD considers the existence of gods to be a relevant question. One that bears thinking about. Perhaps he knows of some phenomena that might be better explained by the existence of the supernatural.Here's an analogy. At present, I'm not an agnostic regarding the existence of pixies. I don't believe they exist. But if I found magical glowing pixie dust laying around my house I'd begin to wonder. Now the existence of pixies would be a relevant question (assuming the dust had the properties usually attributed to pixie dust, and was sufficiently unlikely to have appeared by known processes). Now imagine the pixie dust suddenly vanished, leaving no evidence behind. I would have had a subjective experience that hinted at the existence of pixies, but no evidence with which to argue their existence.
Now the question would be relevant to me, but not to anyone else. I could therefore call myself an agnostic with regards to pixies, while you who had never seen the pixie dust, would rightly maintain a disbelief in them.Couldn't the relevance of a question be something that differs from person to person?Respectfully,-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

To be consistent, that's exactly what he would assert. RAZD's disagreement, and the one that has been hashed out over 4 threads now, and one that Onifre has been sucked into now, is that he doesn't quite grasp how agnosticism and atheism relate to each other. Agnosticism is an atheistic position, by taking no position, you don't have belief, and are thus atheistic. Just about every atheist on this board would agree that they don't and can't KNOW if there is a god or not, meaning they're agnostic, they just also take the approach that if something is not evidenced, there is no reason to consider it any more than as an intellectual exercise and live their lives as if it doesn't exist.

Well you look for the possible causes of those subjective experiences. Obviously. If we assume that a scientific answer is available then we look for natural causes of those experiences. If we don't then we are in "somethingsupernatural of the gaps" terriotory.What we do not do is assume that what the person believes to be the cause of such experiences necessarily is the cause (e.g. God). What we definitely do not do is claim that what the person believes is the cause of their expereince is evidence of that which they believe to be the cause. Because that is circular.

That the majority of humans think that god exists is an objectively evidenced reason the think that they might. And if you realize that the premise that 'the possibility that gods actually exist is totally objectively unevidenced' is false then you'll see that your argument isn't sound. Totally unevidence... infinitely more likely...Sounds like absolutes to me.

More or less.Given that there are truly but two categories of person, the (as yet) lost and the found, then a lost person who adheres to Christian practice - for whatever reason (usually as a result of their upbringing) - is not a believer in the only sense that matters. They might believe in God, but even the demons do that...It's no ironclad measure of things (although it isn't that hard to spot the average unbeliever), but at the last census ca. 90% of the Irish population self-identified as Christian (largely Roman Catholic). Yet on an average Sunday in the town where I attend church, only 400-500 of the 15,000 or so population ever attend Sunday church of any denomination.- Their profession of belief might be genuine. What matters is the basis of their believing what they believe. If it's the result of a personal encounter with God then it's a saving belief. If its the result of upbringing .. or even a sincere desire to believe, then it not a saving belief - however genuinely felt/desired.- My apologies. You're usually so knowledgeable about that which you engage in discussion in, I'd taken it for granted you'd know.As mentioned earlier, there are but two categories of people in the whole world, regardless of the age they lived in. The two categories of people we'll call; The Lost and The Found. Amongst The Lost there are also two main divisions: The Religious Lost and The Irreligious Lost. Both are destined for Hell should they remain lost.The Religious Lost 'believe in God' (perhaps in the way outlined above) and attempt to obtain favour with God (unto favorable afterlife outcome) by following Gods laws to the best of their ability. Examples of The Religious Lost would be found in Judaism, Islam and any works-based Christian denomination (usually, but not at all limited to, Roman Catholicism). Ex-member Jar, for example, was an excellent example of The Religious Lost, centring his theology on Matthew 25, in which the saved and the unsaved appear to be separated on the basis of their having done good works.Why describe The Religious Lost as 'Jew'? Well, in Pauls day, the Jew was the obvious, local example of a Religious Lost on which to base his global example. The Jews in those days sought to appease God through their observence of legal statutes. They do so still - as do many other religions: Islam, Roman Catholicism, aspects of Protestantism..* arguably, you could include any kind of religious person and any kind of divinity into the 'Jew' category of lost person. The word 'Jew' in this context is merely representitive of a type: the person who believes they can earn a 'positive afterlife outcome' by their following the rules of whatever diety they happen to worship. And so we can include eg: Hindu's in our list of 'Jews')The other category of lost person, the irreligious person, is referred to as 'a Gentile'. Atheists and agnostics and deists would fit snugly into this category of lost folk.There's no a cut n' dried de-lineation between that which is a 'Jew' and that which is a 'Gentile'. Not that it much matters. What needs to be born in mind is that both are lost.-__________* that someone identifies as eg: a Roman Catholic or a Hindu doesn't necessarily mean they are lost. It is part of the human condition to suppose that we must appease God (a notion even the atheists give credence to - in their supposing that their works would be the defining issue "should it turn out that God actually does exist at the end of the day"). And so, someone who has fulfilled the criterion of salvation, perhaps unknown to themselves, can continue to labour under the notion that they must 'appease God by my works' and in turn, adhere to the tenets of a 'Jewish' religion Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi Meldinoor, Well in this instance it does because it's dealing more with the methodology of scientific inquiry. Right. Now, take it one step further and ask yourself (or propose the question to people) WHY would you need to deal with the existence of pixies in the first place?I could ask you to disprove their existence; if you can't, I would then tell you you must remain agnostic to their existence. But the point would be for you to ask the person for their reason for inquiring about pixies in the first place.This is how science would approach the issue and ask, for what reason is anyone asking about pixies (god/unicorns/leprechauns/etc) to begin with?Is there a phenomenon in question for which natural causes is somehow not going to be the end result? This is impossible, IMO.Human inquiry works from simple to complex - let me explain that better.All of the knowledge we've acquired stems from a basic analysis of nature, working from the simplest to the hardest. We learned about atoms, then the nucleus, then about quarks, and hopefully one day, string. But NOT the other way around. The atom phenomenon had to come first, before the nucleus, quark, string (etc.).The god question, IMO (and if I'm wrong we're here to debate it), works in the string-to-quark-to-nucleus-to-atom direction - in other words, it works opposite to how science works. It assumes the premise BEFORE there is an objective reason to assume there even needs to be a premise.Now, why is it impossible to propose the god question (assuming that god means "the creator of the universe") - Because, humans have not yet reached a point in our common knowledge about the universe to suppose a need for a cause.As an analogy: We haven't yet discovered the atom, to assume there might be a nucleus - let alone quarks and possibly strings.What phenomenon have humans witnessed from Earth that would lead them to assume there might be a cause for it that is equal to the god concept?IMO, it is beyond current knowledge to even propose the question, because the question begs for a logical reason to have asked it. Well thats another issue. Once we allow subjective experiences to lend credibility to the question, then the question loses it's point.If, because of subjective reasons, you would ask someone else, Is there a god? Then the person is well within their right to ask you what YOU mean by god. And that's where it falls apart.At the very least you get something along the lines of "The creator of the universe." Which falls back to the point I made about humans not having enough common knowledge about the universe to suppose it needs a creator.Point being: There is no logical reason to ask the question - if we are using the methodology of science as the proper method for inquiry.- Oni

Hi Meldinoor, looks like terminal topic drift is underway. Sorry.Relevance is only important to the degree you need to make a decision. Why should I automatically disbelieve something when there is no evidence to do so? Certainly pixies have been mentioned before, and finding a real one would be most exciting yes? I agree that whether one exists or not is not a critical decision I need to make, so waiting for further evidence pro or con would be the prudent logical scientific approach would it not?This is due to what I call the open-minded skeptic approach, a willingness to consider concepts on their merits and not on any preconceptions of validity or truth. Actually most of the discussions have been about the reasons (or more correctly, the lack thereof) to justify an opinion that the existence of god/s is highly unlikely. With emphasis on the unlikely. You could be agnostic if skeptical of your experience, or you could be a 3 - agnostic believer, predominantly agnostic but leaning towards belief due to your subjective experience. Certainly you would be more open minded to the idea of pixies existing than before such an experience.Unfortunately this has nothing to do with your original topic, which I do find of interest, while the atheists had their chance to make their points on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread and failed. I don't see any reason to let them rehash those arguments here, and will mark further responses along this line as "noted" - because they are not relevant to this topic.Deciding whether god/s exist or not is actually fairly irrelevant in my mind - they either do or they don't, and no amount of opinion one way or the other is going to change that, nor does it necessarily have any impact on your life.Now, getting back to your topic, the question you had for Peg was Now we have also established that a subjective personal experience is cause for faith So we can establish a possibility for a generic faith belief, and the question then becomes one of getting from that point to one based on some well known religion or another - why christian gospel for instance?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /qs

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Peg, a couple of questions: I've not discussed this with you before, so it is my lapse, but are you catholic? I understand you are an old earth believer, iirc.Just trying to get the frame of reference here, thanks.This I take it is the biblical stand Thus theses souls will disappear forever? While the catholic teaching is Are you saying that hell is not in the bible but has been added by the church?Just curious.Now -- how do we tell which is true? When you trust a source by faith, how do you tell what source to trust?As I said to Meldinoor Message 57:

quote:

---

For a believer (regardless of belief) the positive feedback is important (confirmation bias) while the negative feedback is discarded (cognitive dissonance).

​

For a skeptic (regardless of belief) the negative feedback is important (confirmation bias) while the positive feedback is discarded (cognitive dissonance).

​

To get around this log-jam we need some deal-breaker.

​

Any suggestions? Assuming we are off the map of scientific process and knowledge, and only have subjective experiences of different people to go on.

​

How do we decide some measure of truth in these circumstances?

---

It would seem that all we have are differing opinions about reality, yes?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : name spelling

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Indeed. Why disbelieve the proposition that the existence of gods is unlikely when there's no evidence to do so?Why disbelieve these people?http://www.beastobama.com/obamanation/index.htmlBecause there's overwhelming evidence that people make gods up, like the "Obama hating god".I'm a 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale about the proposition that Obama is the antichrist. I'm skeptical about the faith of those people in the pictures.And you, RAZD? Don't you agree that it's extremely unlikely that Obama is the antichrist? Aren't you a 6 out of 7?All true skeptics should be 6/7 on evidenceless, faith based supernatural propositions, don't you agree RAZD? There's plenty of evidence that superstitious people make such things up to support the position.

So if someone makes a claim and doesn't have evidence to support it, the most skeptical approach is to assume it is wrong?As I understand it, skepticism is an approach to testable claims. If I'm a skeptic, then I should evaluate the likelihood of any claim that you make by testing it. For instance, if a purple pixie does reside in my closet, it's a simple matter to simply open the closet door to find out. If I just leave the door shut and muse at the unlikelihood of pixies, I will not have achieved any certainty on the issue, and I will not have been properly skeptical.Now the question of which is the most rational approach. It may be more skeptical to actually test the pixie claim. But what about the gnome in the flower pot, or the leprechaun under the lamp shade? Chasing after all possible unfounded claims would be a sad waste of time as most of them would not be true. The problem becomes even bigger when testing a claim would require more time and effort than opening a closet door. Is it even rational to test these claims then?But when you get to the untestable claims, like the IPU, or any other alleged supernatural entity, this approach falls flat on its face. There's no way to gather evidence one way or the other. Sure, we have evidence that people make up things, like pixies or IPUs, but the fact that people make things up says nothing about the likelihood of anyone of their claims. As far as we know, there could be an infinite number of universes. (Another untestable claim) Every single improbable claim might be at home in one or more of these universes.I agree fully with what onifre was saying regarding relevance. Why should I care whether there is a universe where Italian plumbers defend the Mushroom Kingdom by stomping on goombas? I do not believe it exists, nor do I have cause for disbelief. And I don't care one way or the other. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove or disprove Super Mario's existence, because it has no bearing on my life. But effectively I'm a 4/7 regarding his existence, because I don't have any means by which to argue for or against this multi-universe proposition. I think there's plenty of evidence that Obama is NOT the antichrist. So in this particular case I too will take side of disbelief. But when you reject a claim based on the superstition of the claimant, are you not judging the person rather than the claim itself?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi RAZD, Possibly. But as I missed my chance to post in the pseudoskepticism thread, at least I got to take part in that discussion long enough to present my opinion. Now, back to to the topic. It would be interesting to compile subjective experiences across a range of belief systems and see what they have in common. It might take us back to the root of all belief-systems. Personally, I have experienced a few of what one might call subjective religious experiences, and afterwards found that at least a few other people had experienced the same thing. I do of course consider the possibility that said experiences had perfectly natural causes, but the details of the event precludes me from rejecting the supernatural altogether.Perhaps finding the commonalities of people's religious experiences will give us some ideas as to what lies at the core of all religion, and maybe, offer an explanation as to why we have religion in the first place. Do we preclude a supernatural explanation?Respectfully,-MeldinoorABE: This post may still seem off topic. But I'm discussing a way to skeptically evaluate the foundations of religious faith. If we are contrasting faith and skepticism, surely it would be of interest to explore the validity of the subjective experiences that give rise to faith.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

I said "evidenceless, faith based supernatural propositions". Then, the Dawkins 6 is:6.Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'Translated for general use, this might be "I cannot know for certain, but I think that proposition "x" is very improbable."So, not "wrong", as you put it, but very improbable. If we have evidence of people making up supernatural beings (and we have loads) and no evidence to support the existence of any of these beings, then where does the balance of evidence take you when you consider any given specific proposition? The IPU operates in this universe, and pixies are from the west country of England. True, there might be nine dimensional magic pencils outside the universe, but if extra-universal supernatural propositions come from other human beings, then the overwhelming likelihood is that they're making them up. It's a provisional "I cannot know, but I think it's very improbable" for all of them, as there may be nothing outside the universe, or nothing but things humans have never thought of with our space-time minds.I agree with your point about irrelevance for things that have no effect on this universe. RAZD will call you a pseudo-skeptic if you take a "6" attitude on anything you cannot conclusively disprove. The nature of claims like that and omphalism is that you cannot use the normal lines of evidence, because things can be said to be intended to appear as they are. That's why you assess the sources of the myth.I'm making an observation based conclusion about my species. Although we have the capacity to explore the reality around us, we also have the capacity to make evidenceless myths up about it, or, in more colloquial terms, there are loads of delusional nutters about.I can also make another observation. In the comparison of the supernatural hypothesis that Obama is the anti-Christ and the natural hypothesis that he's an ordinary human being, the latter is almost infinitely more likely than the former because we have infinitely more evidence for the existence of nature than we have for the existence of "supernature"."Natural origins" is always the observation, evidence based default, for Obama or for anything else.So, have I persuaded you with my advocacy of the "6" position as a practical and rational one in relation to all evidenceless supernatural propositions? (The point I'm really trying to make is that everybody does actually have "6" positions on many things, but some EvC members seem to have trouble admitting this in their zeal to avoid having to describe themselves as pseudo-skeptics by their own preferred definition of the word - a much abused term).As for the "Why faith?" question in your thread title, you really need answers from religious people, I suppose, so let us infidels know if we're distracting from the topic. I'll be happy to destroy the "atheism is a faith" claim that is so often made, if anyone wants to make it.

Hi Meldinoor, very well. To be clear, any 6 position requires objective evidence to support it, just as any 2 position requires objective evidence to support it.Examples of properly supported 2's and 6' are rife within sciences, so any claim that one's position doesn't need to provide that same level of evidence to support it is special pleading.You seem to have a handle on how far one can go on opinion, so perhaps we can leave it at that. I think this would be an entirely valid approach to looking at the issue of religious and spiritual experiences. These types of experiences occur in all cultures, and virtually all religions have their own brand of ascetics who practice having such experiences.You would have to filter the related experiences to account for the varying worldviews involved in order to find common elements, and this may be difficult. This too, is of interest to me, however I am at a bit of a loss on where to go after these experience, although there are some hypothesis.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •