But no-one ever has all the information and so it’s perfectly possible to come up with different logical answers.
e.g. 2x + y + z = 9 y=4
either x=1 and z=3, or x=2 and z=1. It is impossible to know which. Even this presumes that x and z are whole positive numbers. There are in fact an infinite amount of correct answers
It’s the presumption of fundamentalism – atheist or religious - to have all of the information.
Telling people that there is no God, or that there is a god, is telling people that x=1 and z=3 without mentioning the possibility that x may = -3.7872092743 and z may = 12.5744185486.
Where you’re bringing subjectivity into it (people’s experience of god is always subjective) more variables can be unknown. IF you are trying to give a one size fits all logical answer, this can therefore only ever be ‘x may=2’. Not even ‘probably’. ‘Probably’ gives bias.
Religious experience is different for each person. You have observed things in life and have observed from your perspective that there is probably no God. You live your life on this basis and your life is happier and more fulfilled (I hope). Logically, there is no god for you. Someone else may observe from their perspective that there is a god. They see people living and being born against all the odds. They see bees fly despite being told it’s impossible. They decide that, logically, there must be a higher force keeping things going. With this belief, their life is happier and more fulfilled. How dare anyone tell either of these people that they are ‘probably’ wrong?
If people try to convert those of different beliefs by applying their own logic to the other person’s life, then that is the only place where the logic fails because you can’t apply the same logic to a different situation. It doesn’t mean that the initial logic was incorrect.
Mathematical logic and intellectual logic differ because they differ in their application. No one would ever apply the same mathematical logic to a different puzzle. And yet with intellectual logic, you have to, or there would be no human development at all. No one situation is the same as any other. There are always unknown variables.
Telling people that there is no God, or that there is a god, is telling people that x=1 and z=3 without mentioning the possibility that x may = -3.7872092743 and z may = 12.5744185486.
Absolutely. Whereas telling them there's _probably_ no God is saying that "So far we've never encountered any evidence of cases of X over 3, and in order to have God X would have to be 957, so there's probably no God."
Someone else may observe from their perspective that there is a god. In which case they should have some kind of experience that makes it logical - and they should be able to explain it, one would hope.
They see people living and being born against all the odds. The odds are against people being born?
They see bees fly despite being told it’s impossible. Actually, it's not impossible. That's one of those urban myths that gets repeated despite not being based in anything. See here for the origin of the story.
Having unexplained things in life is not a good reason to assume God. "I don't understand, therefore God did it." doesn't strike me as at all logical.
And yet with intellectual logic, you have to, or there would be no human development at all.
Nope, that's not how it works. We apply logic to each scenario differently, because they have different inputs.
There are always unknown variables. Of course there are - and in those circumstances the explanation is "unknown", not "God". What you have there is a "God of the Gaps" argument, which tells you nothing about God - it merely tells you things about your own ignorance.
"So far we've never encountered any evidence of cases of X over 3, and in order to have God X would have to be 957, so there's probably no God." Maybe in their life x does =957. You can’t possibly know someone else’s life experience. This is a totally valid way of expressing why you probably don’t believe in god. Not of why they shouldn’t. And why should it bother you if they do, and this make them happy? (as in all these arguments, as long as they are causing no harm) They should have some kind of experience that makes it logical - and they should be able to explain it, one would hope. “When I believe in God and go to church every week my life is happier and fulfilled. When I pray I feel like someone is listening to me and it helps me make sense of my life. When I don’t, I feel sad and disconnected from the world. Therefore my belief in God is a good thing.” What is illogical about that statement? The odds are against people being born? Birth is a highly unlikely and massively dangerous experience and the fact that so many pregnancies result in a healthy mother and baby should be medically unlikely – logically. They see bees fly despite being told it’s impossible. Actually, it's not impossible. That’s not the point and that’s not what I said. Person A has has two pieces of information: 1. That bee is flying. 2. I have been told it should be aeronautically impossible for bees to fly. To take both of those pieces of information as absolute fact, it is completely logical to presume there must be something beyond the physical which is causing that bee to fly. Person B has two different pieces of information. 1. That bee is flying. 2. I have been told bees are able to fly. It is logical for B to presume the bee flies because it is able to fly (of course the reason why the bee if flying, as opposed to how, is another point entirely and essentially comes down to ‘because of its survival mechanism’. I’ve never really heard the existence of a survival mechanism adequately described by anyone, but then I haven’t looked very hard, because it doesn’t matter, to me.) Both are presuming that their statement at (2) is true. They have been told so by science. Both are reaching logical conclusions. B would further argue that their point no (2) is a further and more accurate scientific ‘fact’. But what if there is a further undiscovered scientific fact that shows, for example, that bees can only fly because of their diet, and someone feeds a bee a banana and discovers it can still fly and the whole thing starts over. So it’s the same point I made before – the assumption that the information to hand is the only, complete set of correct information is where things go wrong. Imagination feeds science and development. That is why, going back to Ari’s point, imagination is essential. In order to evolve as human beings, we should all continually question things are come up with new definitions for x. If God is x, then x=0 is only one of an infinite number of definitions. Let’s see how things work for me if x=357. Having unexplained things in life is not a good reason to assume God. "I don't understand, therefore God did it." doesn't strike me as at all logical. No, the argument is actually ‘there is no physical explanation for this, therefore there must be a metaphysical one. That is perfectly logical. How they construct this metaphysical explanation is up to them and it is there where they may make an illogical jump.
“When I believe in God and go to church every week my life is happier and fulfilled. When I pray I feel like someone is listening to me and it helps me make sense of my life. When I don’t, I feel sad and disconnected from the world. Therefore my belief in God is a good thing.” What is illogical about that statement?
Nothing - because it doesn't say anything about God at all - it merely says things about people actions. If people want to pray, go to church, etc. that's fine. I'm only concerned if they want to make public claims about something they can't back up.
the argument is actually ‘there is no physical explanation for this, therefore there must be a metaphysical one. That is perfectly logical.
No, it's not. "I have no explanation of type X for this, therefore the explanation must be of type Y." makes no logical sense. Having no explanation of type X merely means you don't know what the explanation is, not that it must be of a particular type.
I'm only concerned if they want to make public claims about something they can't back up.
Me too. I entirely disagree with this sort of behaviour from religious groups, too.
No, it's not. It's not the only logical explanation, but it is one. The information is 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena.' Believing that at face value, they conclude, logically, that the explanation must be non-physical: Where y is a physical explanation and x is some other explanation, if y+x=1, and y=0, x must equal 1.
You do not believe that statement at face value. If I understand you correctly, you hear 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena YET.' You think that at some point there will be a physical explanation.
So why, at some point, might there not be a physical explanation for god? More to the point, why is it not ok for other people to think there might be (which is the point of what I object to about this campaign)?
The information is 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena.' Believing that at face value, they conclude, logically, that the explanation must be non-physical: Nope - because "there is no physical explanation for x" means the same as "There is no physical explanation for x _that we know of_".
If people want to posit a physical God - a creator of the universe pottering away with a great big machine then I'm only marginally happier than I am with a non-physical one - i.e. it's an interesting fantasy, but without any kind of evidence it's just an amusing idea, not something to be taken seriously.
So the logic of my offence at the slogan is as follows: ‘There’s probably no God.’ - God is a subjective experience and to tell people that their experience of life is incorrect I find patronising. ‘Stop worrying’ - The answer to the first part – is there a God? has to be reached as conclusion that is right for each person. To tell them to stop thinking about it implies this is untrue; that spiritual contemplation is only for ‘us’ and not for ‘you’. ‘and enjoy life’ – stop caring for people? Stop doing anything in your life that helps others or that is difficult/inconvenient/unenjoyable? Abandon all ‘worry’ and indulge in a purley hedonistic lifestyle? I think this is a dangerous message. Co-operation is vital for the continuation of society. The logic of your celebration of the slogan is as follows. ‘There’s probably no God.’ I agree. Great, my slogan is on a bus. ‘Stop worrying’ – stop being beaten down and hurt by oppressive religious regimes. ‘Enjoy life’ – take time out, smell the roses, enjoy life without fear of being judged. Both of our logical conclusions are entirely correct. They are based on opinion, but as you have previously stated that everything is opinion, I don’t see why that makes a difference. You cannot understand the logic of someone who believes in God. Someone who believes in God cannot understand your logic. It is the perception that any one set of logic is superior which upsets me. And yet with intellectual logic, you have to, or there would be no human development at all. I stand by this statement. Someone steals a car and is punished. If he steals a car again, a logical assumption would be that he will be punished again. If this does not happen, this does not make the original assumption illogical. Every single situation is different because there are an infinite number of unknown variables. You have to apply logic to certain situations with a certain amount of ‘faith’ that these unknown variables won’t produce a different outcome.
I didn't think you were (although be careful because some of your language is incredibly patronising. I 'know' that you don't mean it to be; that's just your manner. O at least that is the logical conclusion I draw)
I as just clarifying who I am because now Ari has also been posting I don't want to confuse matters.
God is a subjective experience No. God either exists or God doesn't exist. Subjective experiences are subjective experiences, God is God. The two are not the same thing.
The answer to the first part – is there a God? has to be reached as conclusion that is right for each person. Nope. No more than "Is there a tea cup." or "Is there a black swan."
Well that's just a fundamental point of disagreement.
I disagree because:
a) you can prove that there is a tea cup or a black swan, but not that there is no possibility of one.
b) a tea cup or a black swan I would say can de easily defined. God cannot. (not an explanation that everyone can agree with)
To prove that something that cannot be universally defined does not exist is impossible. To live your life presuming the existence of it and the impact that has on your life is a subjective experience.
a) you can prove that there is a tea cup or a black swan, but not that there is no possibility of one. Absolutely. Which is why I'm not 100% atheist, and will only happily stand behind something that says "God _probably_ doesn't exist."
I don't see why a complete definition of God is necessary in order to have some criteria for determining the existence of whatever you mean by it. If you don't know what _you_ mean by it then yes, that's a problem for disproving it, but one would hope also a problem with believing it in the first place.
To live your life presuming the existence of it and the impact that has on your life is a subjective experience. As I've said before, imagining things in your own head is fine by me - making statements about it that cannot be backed up is where my objections lie.
What do you mean by 'making statements?' Trying to convince other people that that is what they should believe? Trying to legislate on the basis of your beliefs? Passing judgement on others on the basis of your beliefs? Because if so, I agree entirely.
That's kind of why I don't like the slogan - some people* are using it as a tool to pass judgement and to mock people.
* Not you - I do have a specific person in mind - no-one you know as it happens, who is particularly bad for it, but I have encountered it in various places.
I agree that some people are too judgemental. Heck, I am sometimes myself.
I'm very aware of historical background - I know that 400 years ago pretty much _everyone_ believed in God. This makes it very hard to argue that belief in God is "stupid" - because it was clearly believed by a lot of smart people.
I get very fed up with people that argue that anyone who doesn't believe in God, or gay rights, or womens rights, or that racism is bad, is automatically evil - because the vast majority of people throughout history believed in none of those things, and were still kind to their children, friends, dogs, poor people, etc.
"Making statements" is a vague thing. If you were to think, in your head, "God's lovely. He smells of my favourite kind of cheese, and he makes the sky blue." then that's _fine_. Posting it on LJ, talking to me about it, wearign it on a t-shirt, or otherwise bringing it from inside your head to outside of it, in my view makes it open for debate.
Do you object to people making statements on LJ etc or do you think it makes it open to debate? I asked you to clarify what you meant by 'making a statement' as you said you objected to it.
Technically, the statement I made at the opening post is not open to debate. It is a statement of fact. The issues surrounding are open to debate, but then they always are. So I'm unclear now whether you are counting my opening statement as:
Opening issues up for debate? Objectionable? Neither?
If neither, then...what is your point? (I don't mean this in an argumentative way. I just seem to be agreeing with a lot you're saying, or we've identified key points were we Just Don't Agree, and am wondering - well, what your point is!)
Do you object to people making statements on LJ etc or do you think it makes it open to debate? Definitely the latter. If they hadn't wanted debate they wouldn't have left the "make a comment" feature turned on.
Technically, the statement I made at the opening post is not open to debate. I don't think I ever disagreed with your feelings (or, indeed, respond to your original post - I replied to later comments). I did question it, because I was curious as to why you feel the way you do.
Your original post was particularly clearly inviting debate - the "Oh No she didn't" bit was clearly laying down a challenge. It wasn't until your original response to Sian that I decided to respond, because I disagreed with some of your statements there.
So if we go back there, I believe my original points were "it's not fundamental atheism, it's wishy-washy agnosticism." and "I think it's good for influencing cultural norms away from the eeeeevils of religion."
I actually really didn't anticipate quite the level of debate here. The 'oh no she didn't' was intended in a light hearted vein (more 'look I disagree with the popular viewpoint hee hee I 'm going against the flow' than 'You're all wrong, you bunch of bastards and I'll prove it') I thought it was quite possible that no-one would comment at all. Of course the issues are therefore open to debate. However, I think it's a slightly off-kilter debate because I knew, understood and largely agreed with all the 'counter points' that were being made. Whereas I wasn't sure if people were aware of the opposing side beyond that of religious fundies.
You said that 'making statements about it that cannot be backed up is where my objections lie.' which is where I wanted clarification - you seem to be now saying that you feel that this make it open to debate, which to me is a different thing to 'objecting', and you're quite right.
I think the thread reopened because of the logic argument. I stand by entirely that it is possible to come up with two logical answers to the same question - something which you seem to be agreeing with at points and then disagreeing with. It then went off at a tangent re the making statements thing because we don't actually seem to disagree with each other on this point I think we fundamentally disagree here or at the very least inherently don't understand each other. Fine. Where would the world be without disagreement?
I think our core assumptions being different means we could skirt around this for years; we are approaching the whole thing from different angles which is why we are coming up with different opinions, but it also why we are arguing different points, which is where it's got confusing I think.
Whereas I wasn't sure if people were aware of the opposing side beyond that of religious fundies.
I do agree with you that ordinary believers are sometimes demonised because it's assumed that they're "as bad" as the extremists. And I also agree that we ought to be careful about randomly offending people - society tends to work better when people are at least reasonably polite most of the time.
I stand by entirely that it is possible to come up with two logical answers to the same question - something which you seem to be agreeing with at points and then disagreeing with. Maybe I can clarify this using Ari's Sudoku puzzle example: Let's assume that we both finish our sudoku puzzle at the same time and then compare our answers, to discover that they are different. There are three reasons why this might be so: 1) One (or both) of us might have made a mistake in our logic. 2) We started off with different puzzles. 3) There wasn't enough information to work it out and one (or both) of us guessed a number.
In the case of (1) then going over the logic should allow us to reach the same conclusion as each other.
In the case of (2) then knowing the starting point of each others puzzles would at least allow us to say "Oh, I see how you got to your finished version." - i.e. if someone says to me "I saw God. And now I believe in him." I can see the logic behind their conclusion, even if their initial starting point is not the same as mine.
In the case of (3) then the problem is that we guessed. If you guess then you cannot claim to have the right answer. Some people are happier with a full sudoku board that they've made stuff up to fit, but if you're being intellectually honest then you're going to have say that "These 74 cells are right, and the other 17 are unknown at this time." and to me this is where a lot of religion goes wrong. They say "Look, we don't understand X, Y or Z, so it's perfectly reasonable to say 'God did it.'" rather than simply marking it down as "We have no way of knowing.", and I can't see any way that is justified. You seem to feel differently about this.
Does that clear up my position?
Oh - and I largely feel that these conversations happen better in person, because it's easier to draw things, or throw in silly jokes, and I come across as less arrogantly patronising :->
I don't see why a complete definition of God is necessary in order to have some criteria for determining the existence of whatever you mean by it.
Well that is why god is a subjective experience. Each person must have their own definition of what god is and then determine based on their definition whether they believe that their definition exists.
However, to make universal statements - 'God exists' 'God does not exist', a universal definition is needed.
There are certain things that Gods tend to have in common (supernatural abilities, the ability to pass judgement in the afterlife, knowing what you're doing at all times). Not all of them have them - but the majority (from my understanding) do.
If you had a God who didn't create the universe, couldn't tell what you were up to, and didn't judge you for it, then I'm not sure most people would agree they were a God at all.
Using that as a starting point doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 10:43 am (UTC)e.g. 2x + y + z = 9 y=4
either x=1 and z=3, or x=2 and z=1. It is impossible to know which. Even this presumes that x and z are whole positive numbers. There are in fact an infinite amount of correct answers
It’s the presumption of fundamentalism – atheist or religious - to have all of the information.
Telling people that there is no God, or that there is a god, is telling people that x=1 and z=3 without mentioning the possibility that x may = -3.7872092743 and z may = 12.5744185486.
Where you’re bringing subjectivity into it (people’s experience of god is always subjective) more variables can be unknown. IF you are trying to give a one size fits all logical answer, this can therefore only ever be ‘x may=2’. Not even ‘probably’. ‘Probably’ gives bias.
Religious experience is different for each person. You have observed things in life and have observed from your perspective that there is probably no God. You live your life on this basis and your life is happier and more fulfilled (I hope). Logically, there is no god for you. Someone else may observe from their perspective that there is a god. They see people living and being born against all the odds. They see bees fly despite being told it’s impossible. They decide that, logically, there must be a higher force keeping things going. With this belief, their life is happier and more fulfilled. How dare anyone tell either of these people that they are ‘probably’ wrong?
If people try to convert those of different beliefs by applying their own logic to the other person’s life, then that is the only place where the logic fails because you can’t apply the same logic to a different situation. It doesn’t mean that the initial logic was incorrect.
Mathematical logic and intellectual logic differ because they differ in their application. No one would ever apply the same mathematical logic to a different puzzle. And yet with intellectual logic, you have to, or there would be no human development at all. No one situation is the same as any other. There are always unknown variables.
Lx
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 11:02 am (UTC)Absolutely. Whereas telling them there's _probably_ no God is saying that "So far we've never encountered any evidence of cases of X over 3, and in order to have God X would have to be 957, so there's probably no God."
Someone else may observe from their perspective that there is a god.
In which case they should have some kind of experience that makes it logical - and they should be able to explain it, one would hope.
They see people living and being born against all the odds.
The odds are against people being born?
They see bees fly despite being told it’s impossible.
Actually, it's not impossible. That's one of those urban myths that gets repeated despite not being based in anything. See here for the origin of the story.
Having unexplained things in life is not a good reason to assume God. "I don't understand, therefore God did it." doesn't strike me as at all logical.
And yet with intellectual logic, you have to, or there would be no human development at all.
Nope, that's not how it works. We apply logic to each scenario differently, because they have different inputs.
There are always unknown variables.
Of course there are - and in those circumstances the explanation is "unknown", not "God". What you have there is a "God of the Gaps" argument, which tells you nothing about God - it merely tells you things about your own ignorance.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 12:17 pm (UTC)Maybe in their life x does =957. You can’t possibly know someone else’s life experience.
This is a totally valid way of expressing why you probably don’t believe in god. Not of why they shouldn’t. And why should it bother you if they do, and this make them happy? (as in all these arguments, as long as they are causing no harm)
They should have some kind of experience that makes it logical - and they should be able to explain it, one would hope.
“When I believe in God and go to church every week my life is happier and fulfilled. When I pray I feel like someone is listening to me and it helps me make sense of my life. When I don’t, I feel sad and disconnected from the world. Therefore my belief in God is a good thing.” What is illogical about that statement?
The odds are against people being born?
Birth is a highly unlikely and massively dangerous experience and the fact that so many pregnancies result in a healthy mother and baby should be medically unlikely – logically.
They see bees fly despite being told it’s impossible.
Actually, it's not impossible.
That’s not the point and that’s not what I said. Person A has has two pieces of information: 1. That bee is flying. 2. I have been told it should be aeronautically impossible for bees to fly. To take both of those pieces of information as absolute fact, it is completely logical to presume there must be something beyond the physical which is causing that bee to fly. Person B has two different pieces of information. 1. That bee is flying. 2. I have been told bees are able to fly. It is logical for B to presume the bee flies because it is able to fly (of course the reason why the bee if flying, as opposed to how, is another point entirely and essentially comes down to ‘because of its survival mechanism’. I’ve never really heard the existence of a survival mechanism adequately described by anyone, but then I haven’t looked very hard, because it doesn’t matter, to me.)
Both are presuming that their statement at (2) is true. They have been told so by science. Both are reaching logical conclusions.
B would further argue that their point no (2) is a further and more accurate scientific ‘fact’. But what if there is a further undiscovered scientific fact that shows, for example, that bees can only fly because of their diet, and someone feeds a bee a banana and discovers it can still fly and the whole thing starts over.
So it’s the same point I made before – the assumption that the information to hand is the only, complete set of correct information is where things go wrong.
Imagination feeds science and development. That is why, going back to Ari’s point, imagination is essential. In order to evolve as human beings, we should all continually question things are come up with new definitions for x. If God is x, then x=0 is only one of an infinite number of definitions. Let’s see how things work for me if x=357.
Having unexplained things in life is not a good reason to assume God. "I don't understand, therefore God did it." doesn't strike me as at all logical.
No, the argument is actually ‘there is no physical explanation for this, therefore there must be a metaphysical one. That is perfectly logical. How they construct this metaphysical explanation is up to them and it is there where they may make an illogical jump.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 12:26 pm (UTC)Nothing - because it doesn't say anything about God at all - it merely says things about people actions. If people want to pray, go to church, etc. that's fine. I'm only concerned if they want to make public claims about something they can't back up.
the argument is actually ‘there is no physical explanation for this, therefore there must be a metaphysical one. That is perfectly logical.
No, it's not. "I have no explanation of type X for this, therefore the explanation must be of type Y." makes no logical sense. Having no explanation of type X merely means you don't know what the explanation is, not that it must be of a particular type.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 01:58 pm (UTC)Me too. I entirely disagree with this sort of behaviour from religious groups, too.
No, it's not.
It's not the only logical explanation, but it is one. The information is 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena.' Believing that at face value, they conclude, logically, that the explanation must be non-physical: Where y is a physical explanation and x is some other explanation, if y+x=1, and y=0, x must equal 1.
You do not believe that statement at face value. If I understand you correctly, you hear 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena YET.' You think that at some point there will be a physical explanation.
So why, at some point, might there not be a physical explanation for god? More to the point, why is it not ok for other people to think there might be (which is the point of what I object to about this campaign)?
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 02:02 pm (UTC)Nope - because "there is no physical explanation for x" means the same as "There is no physical explanation for x _that we know of_".
If people want to posit a physical God - a creator of the universe pottering away with a great big machine then I'm only marginally happier than I am with a non-physical one - i.e. it's an interesting fantasy, but without any kind of evidence it's just an amusing idea, not something to be taken seriously.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 02:32 pm (UTC)cont...
Date: 2009-01-12 12:17 pm (UTC)‘There’s probably no God.’ - God is a subjective experience and to tell people that their experience of life is incorrect I find patronising.
‘Stop worrying’ - The answer to the first part – is there a God? has to be reached as conclusion that is right for each person. To tell them to stop thinking about it implies this is untrue; that spiritual contemplation is only for ‘us’ and not for ‘you’.
‘and enjoy life’ – stop caring for people? Stop doing anything in your life that helps others or that is difficult/inconvenient/unenjoyable? Abandon all ‘worry’ and indulge in a purley hedonistic lifestyle? I think this is a dangerous message. Co-operation is vital for the continuation of society.
The logic of your celebration of the slogan is as follows.
‘There’s probably no God.’ I agree. Great, my slogan is on a bus.
‘Stop worrying’ – stop being beaten down and hurt by oppressive religious regimes.
‘Enjoy life’ – take time out, smell the roses, enjoy life without fear of being judged.
Both of our logical conclusions are entirely correct. They are based on opinion, but as you have previously stated that everything is opinion, I don’t see why that makes a difference.
You cannot understand the logic of someone who believes in God. Someone who believes in God cannot understand your logic. It is the perception that any one set of logic is superior which upsets me.
And yet with intellectual logic, you have to, or there would be no human development at all.
I stand by this statement. Someone steals a car and is punished. If he steals a car again, a logical assumption would be that he will be punished again. If this does not happen, this does not make the original assumption illogical. Every single situation is different because there are an infinite number of unknown variables. You have to apply logic to certain situations with a certain amount of ‘faith’ that these unknown variables won’t produce a different outcome.
Re: cont...
Date: 2009-01-12 12:19 pm (UTC)Re: cont...
Date: 2009-01-12 12:29 pm (UTC)(I'm not attacking you, by the way - I'm just trying to understand your point of view.)
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 01:46 pm (UTC)I as just clarifying who I am because now Ari has also been posting I don't want to confuse matters.
Re: cont...
Date: 2009-01-12 12:28 pm (UTC)No. God either exists or God doesn't exist. Subjective experiences are subjective experiences, God is God. The two are not the same thing.
The answer to the first part – is there a God? has to be reached as conclusion that is right for each person.
Nope. No more than "Is there a tea cup." or "Is there a black swan."
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 01:44 pm (UTC)I disagree because:
a) you can prove that there is a tea cup or a black swan, but not that there is no possibility of one.
b) a tea cup or a black swan I would say can de easily defined. God cannot. (not an explanation that everyone can agree with)
To prove that something that cannot be universally defined does not exist is impossible. To live your life presuming the existence of it and the impact that has on your life is a subjective experience.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 01:57 pm (UTC)Absolutely. Which is why I'm not 100% atheist, and will only happily stand behind something that says "God _probably_ doesn't exist."
I don't see why a complete definition of God is necessary in order to have some criteria for determining the existence of whatever you mean by it. If you don't know what _you_ mean by it then yes, that's a problem for disproving it, but one would hope also a problem with believing it in the first place.
To live your life presuming the existence of it and the impact that has on your life is a subjective experience.
As I've said before, imagining things in your own head is fine by me - making statements about it that cannot be backed up is where my objections lie.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 02:06 pm (UTC)That's kind of why I don't like the slogan - some people* are using it as a tool to pass judgement and to mock people.
* Not you - I do have a specific person in mind - no-one you know as it happens, who is particularly bad for it, but I have encountered it in various places.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 02:17 pm (UTC)I'm very aware of historical background - I know that 400 years ago pretty much _everyone_ believed in God. This makes it very hard to argue that belief in God is "stupid" - because it was clearly believed by a lot of smart people.
I get very fed up with people that argue that anyone who doesn't believe in God, or gay rights, or womens rights, or that racism is bad, is automatically evil - because the vast majority of people throughout history believed in none of those things, and were still kind to their children, friends, dogs, poor people, etc.
"Making statements" is a vague thing. If you were to think, in your head, "God's lovely. He smells of my favourite kind of cheese, and he makes the sky blue." then that's _fine_. Posting it on LJ, talking to me about it, wearign it on a t-shirt, or otherwise bringing it from inside your head to outside of it, in my view makes it open for debate.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 03:20 pm (UTC)Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 03:30 pm (UTC)Did I do it wrong?
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 03:58 pm (UTC)Do you object to people making statements on LJ etc or do you think it makes it open to debate? I asked you to clarify what you meant by 'making a statement' as you said you objected to it.
Technically, the statement I made at the opening post is not open to debate. It is a statement of fact. The issues surrounding are open to debate, but then they always are. So I'm unclear now whether you are counting my opening statement as:
Opening issues up for debate?
Objectionable?
Neither?
If neither, then...what is your point? (I don't mean this in an argumentative way. I just seem to be agreeing with a lot you're saying, or we've identified key points were we Just Don't Agree, and am wondering - well, what your point is!)
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 09:03 am (UTC)Definitely the latter. If they hadn't wanted debate they wouldn't have left the "make a comment" feature turned on.
Technically, the statement I made at the opening post is not open to debate.
I don't think I ever disagreed with your feelings (or, indeed, respond to your original post - I replied to later comments). I did question it, because I was curious as to why you feel the way you do.
Your original post was particularly clearly inviting debate - the "Oh No she didn't" bit was clearly laying down a challenge. It wasn't until your original response to Sian that I decided to respond, because I disagreed with some of your statements there.
So if we go back there, I believe my original points were "it's not fundamental atheism, it's wishy-washy agnosticism." and "I think it's good for influencing cultural norms away from the eeeeevils of religion."
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 10:04 am (UTC)You said that 'making statements about it that cannot be backed up is where my objections lie.' which is where I wanted clarification - you seem to be now saying that you feel that this make it open to debate, which to me is a different thing to 'objecting', and you're quite right.
I think the thread reopened because of the logic argument. I stand by entirely that it is possible to come up with two logical answers to the same question - something which you seem to be agreeing with at points and then disagreeing with. It then went off at a tangent re the making statements thing because we don't actually seem to disagree with each other on this point I think we fundamentally disagree here or at the very least inherently don't understand each other. Fine. Where would the world be without disagreement?
I think our core assumptions being different means we could skirt around this for years; we are approaching the whole thing from different angles which is why we are coming up with different opinions, but it also why we are arguing different points, which is where it's got confusing I think.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 11:08 am (UTC)I do agree with you that ordinary believers are sometimes demonised because it's assumed that they're "as bad" as the extremists. And I also agree that we ought to be careful about randomly offending people - society tends to work better when people are at least reasonably polite most of the time.
I stand by entirely that it is possible to come up with two logical answers to the same question - something which you seem to be agreeing with at points and then disagreeing with.
Maybe I can clarify this using Ari's Sudoku puzzle example:
Let's assume that we both finish our sudoku puzzle at the same time and then compare our answers, to discover that they are different. There are three reasons why this might be so:
1) One (or both) of us might have made a mistake in our logic.
2) We started off with different puzzles.
3) There wasn't enough information to work it out and one (or both) of us guessed a number.
In the case of (1) then going over the logic should allow us to reach the same conclusion as each other.
In the case of (2) then knowing the starting point of each others puzzles would at least allow us to say "Oh, I see how you got to your finished version." - i.e. if someone says to me "I saw God. And now I believe in him." I can see the logic behind their conclusion, even if their initial starting point is not the same as mine.
In the case of (3) then the problem is that we guessed. If you guess then you cannot claim to have the right answer. Some people are happier with a full sudoku board that they've made stuff up to fit, but if you're being intellectually honest then you're going to have say that "These 74 cells are right, and the other 17 are unknown at this time." and to me this is where a lot of religion goes wrong. They say "Look, we don't understand X, Y or Z, so it's perfectly reasonable to say 'God did it.'" rather than simply marking it down as "We have no way of knowing.", and I can't see any way that is justified. You seem to feel differently about this.
Does that clear up my position?
Oh - and I largely feel that these conversations happen better in person, because it's easier to draw things, or throw in silly jokes, and I come across as less arrogantly patronising :->
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
From:Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 09:11 am (UTC)Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 02:10 pm (UTC)Well that is why god is a subjective experience. Each person must have their own definition of what god is and then determine based on their definition whether they believe that their definition exists.
However, to make universal statements - 'God exists' 'God does not exist', a universal definition is needed.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 02:19 pm (UTC)If you had a God who didn't create the universe, couldn't tell what you were up to, and didn't judge you for it, then I'm not sure most people would agree they were a God at all.
Using that as a starting point doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.