As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

Volker,

1.You seem to have forgotten about the third "choice": To neither believe in a or b. If neither position has been supported then surely the only rational position must be to not adopt either belief, right? This position is frequently described as weak atheism.

2. What would you say to a guy who used your argument word for word, except he substituted the word god for Santa Claus? Would you then accept that believing in Santa Claus is just as valid as disbelieving?

Peter

Perhaps however the probability of Santa Claus having escaped all previous analysis of the North Pole would assist in making one outcome closer to lean on, even though it's conceivable that Santa Claus does exist.

I'm not as into astronomy as I once was, but in the case of Alpha Centauri, surely we have less on the ground evidence for what those gremlins would be dancing on.

I guess implicit in my remark on Santa Claus though was the notion that, unlike a number of angelic beings of lore, his existence hinges on a number of things that are a bit easier to test out than say, a deity that can take on any form he wished. If you have not found Santa Claus at the North Pole, and you have spotted your parents sneaking out the presents by night, and you've observed that you still receive good presents even though you know you did *that naughty thing*, then you've got Saint Nick on the run. There's not much left that he's meant to do (in that cultural manifestation at least -- there are nastier versions), that could you test his existence on. If he exists, he is so different to what he's believed to be, that he might as well not exist.

A bit harder than an invisible deity who apparently reveals himself only to those that love him, who does much of his work through the agency of free-willed individuals, who debates his actions with his two other immaterial selves ... and other less tangible properties than these. It's harder to trap this thing down to a certain testable action that weights the probability against its existence. (What's easier to do perhaps is catch it on something it says that doesn't seem true, but that doesn't necessarily rule out everything else about it, including its existence -- that's just a notch on its infallibility, something of value only to many that believe in it, more of polemical value to those that don't.)

My contributions here are more occasional -- partly because I have too much trouble keeping up with all the nuances of the various posts. So I occasionally throw in a barb here or there when something catches my eye. But don't think I'm part of a coordinated response to the rest of your post. Santa Claus just felt like a bit of a straw man. (As are little green men on alpha centauri for that matter -- rhetorically invoking the lack of credibility with which any mention of such gremlins is usually rewarded.)

Franz,

I agree with your points. I didn't bring up Santa as an analogy to God, I brought it up because of Volker's "proof"; I wanted to see if he would accept that any absurdity could be put into it, especially a more testable entity as Santa since Volker indicated that probability didn't matter to his "proof".

Peter

I'm responding a little late, but thanks Peter for more good insights! Concerning my opinion about religion being the big "generator" of human purpose: I think it was a poor formulation. People all over the world continue to be enchanted by the same epic stories and the same poetic formulations of practical ethics, and perhaps they reverb in us so beautifully because they cherish values that are already innately human, albeit consciously unexplored, truths.

That sounded Wittgensteinian!

I need to get to read Searle and Austin, I've promised myself them for ages.

Urgh. Losing the momentum of this thread.will revert when I'm back in Holland and on full internet-capacity again.

I disagree. What you describe is communication and understanding, not logical analysis.
Communicative analysis would entail syntax, semantics and semiotics. Logical (internal) analysis concerns itself with logical structure.
Otherwise any logical validity could be claimed by any (choice of) understanding ("I choose to read your declaration of disarmament as an initiation of covert hostility, therefore it is entirely logical to bomb you into oblivion").

From the standpoint of logic "God exists", "Trees exist", "The Moon is made of cheese" are all equal, because they are all logically possible propositions (i.e. propositions without logical contradictions); logic in and of itself has nothing to do with what is true or not. To find out what things to believe, you have to analyze which propositions are more likely to be true, and which are less likely to be true, by actually looking at the real world and then applying logic to your findings.

It's true that there is no proof for or against God's existance, but there is plenty of evidence to evaluate. We can examine the reliability of the texts and the cultures where the claims for the god in question originated; we can look at claims of miracles; we can point to the many contradicting god concepts throughout history and even now among believers who adhere to the same religion; we can examine ancient cultures and see how their religious beliefs influenced each other (for instance it's probably no coincidence that the egyptian sun god Ra was as obsessed with foreskins as Yahweh later turned out to be) and how religious beliefs have changed over time; we can address the problem that an omnipresent, omnipotent entity doesn't seem to manifest itself in the world in any testable way; we can look at how well the world fits with its claimed creator as commonly defined (the problem of evil for instance); the psychology behind believing; the biases among believers; the countless failures of faith as a method of discovering truth; the fact that strong emotions tend to distort people's view of reality; Lastly, we can examine the stories that people tell about their experiences with God.

After all this, we'll have both positive and negative evidence for the existance of God, and we can then individually try to determine what the most likely proposition concerning God's existence is. If one considers the likelihood for God's existence to be high, one will be a theist, if low one will be a so-called strong atheist, and if one thinks the evidence is inconclusive one will withhold judgement and be a so-called weak atheist, i.e. a person who doesn't believe either way.

Peter

I could sure use one after all that writing.

Peter

There's certainly a merry-go-round tradition to this thread. (Wrong end of the stick syndrome?)

No, I did not know that detail about "Root of all Evil", thanks for that bit! I makes me like RD a bit more again.

Also, of course I didn't want to identify everybody here with that "Brights" movement. That piece of rant was directed at that "movement" alone.

So, now that all is said and done I think I rest my case. Also I have finished my administrative end-of-semester-work, all marks are filed away for the certificates.
I'd like you all to beam here and get real drunk.


Volker

Just out of curiosity, and I know there's enough discussions floating through one thread here, but is there anyone here who falls firmly into the sceptic's camp who is able to enjoy religious texts on a poetic level? Of course we're limited by language to appreciate these things only through translation, but nonetheless many still do. I'd be interested in examples from the 'yes' camp (devastating deconstructions from the 'no' also if they feel inclined to explain their disinterest).