Atheist Epistemology

Reply to John Chlebek Beliefs are considered reliable when they are justified. One form of justification is observation.

Faith is belief despite the lack of justification. Faith glories in believing even when the facts lead elsewhere.

I don't think you have a reply. So be it.

"beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

Is this observable or it is it a faith statement?

Reply to John Chlebek It's wrong.

What observation backs your belief that 2+2=4?

Or your belief that you have a pain in your foot?

I get it. Thanks.

Quoting John Chlebek

Most epistemologies agree, broadly, that beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation.

That would be empiricism, broadly speaking.

What you're getting at is close to the problem that emerged for verificationism. Verificationism was associated with positivism and the Vienna Circle during the mid 20th century. A J Ayer's Language Truth and Logic was a very influential book written on these principles, published 1936. It is a very tightly written and argued book. But the problems with positivism became evident over time, very much along the lines that you suggest - that verificationism is not itself an empirically verifiable principle. (Mind you putting it in these highly condensed and bald terms doesn't do justice to the scope of the debates about the subject).

However, from another angle, there were other developments in 20th c philosophy that also undermined verificationism, notably from philosophy of science. Kuhn's book on Scientific Revolutions showed how many scientists were embedded in theoretical paradigms which were not themselves articulated but determined the kinds experiments they would consider. Michael Polanyi made similar points about the role of 'tacit knowledge' in the scientific process, which, being tacit, could not be precisely articulated.

Quoting John Chlebek

I believe on some level he is begging the question.

I agree. The problem is that culturally, we're highly inclined to empiricism. If you make any statement that can't be validated scientifically, then it's inclined to be viewed with suspicion.

following up on that the Wikipedia entry on Polanyi has some very good amunition for this argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

Reply to John Chlebek

I think Banno nails it. Some atheists will argue that methodological naturalism is the most reliable tool we have for gaining knowledge about the world. But science should not make proclamations about truth and is simply the best we have based on the available evidence. Capital T truth being out of human range and perhaps not even possible.

Reply to John Chlebek Quoting John Chlebek

"beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

Is this observable or it is it a faith statement?

Faith is the excuse you give for believing something without a good reason. When the Christian/Islamic apologist says (and I have had this many times) - "But we all have faith - you have faith that your plane will take off and get you to Honolulu". The answer might be: This is not faith. This is a reasonable expectation based on good evidence that planes, which we can demonstrate exist, fly safely every day. There are pilots with qualifications. There is technology that works and maintenance crew that ensure it does. This does not mean that we have 100% certainty that there won't be a mishap, but there are no certainties in life - except those 'certainties' held by fundamentalists.

Quoting John Chlebek

Me:
"beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

I don't think this is backed by any observation. Therefore it contradicts itself.

It is supported by observation. That's why the atheist is making this claim. To avoid more confusion, by "observation", the atheist is actually referring to, as @Banno said, justification. In the end though it doesn't matter because God statements are empirical statements and thus observation is key.

That said, we live in two worlds: 1. the physical world of tables, chairs, rocks, and rivers and 2. the mental world of ideas. The trend has been, beginning from when our ancestors had their first thoughts, to bring these two worlds into alignment. The obvious reason for that being the high risk of injury and even fatalities if they don't - imagine if in the mental world, you believed that lions were cute and cuddly cats; you would end up as lunch, dead.

However, that doesn't, in any way, diminish or eliminate neither the distinction between these two worlds nor the legitimacy of each. What I'm getting at is, god's an idea, a mental object and is as real as other ideas like numbers, the laws of nature, and so on. That god doesn't seem to be part of the physical world should bother us as much as an object in the physical world that we have never encountered and therefore isn't part of the mental world e.g. a novel object in some distant galaxy. Not at all!

Reply to Tom Storm Then there are those whose only strongly held, non-falsifiable hypothesis is that God is not. They will acknowledge that scientific hypotheses are falsifiable, always subject to revision or rejection, but will cling to this particular conviction with adamantine firmness.

Reply to Wayfarer Quoting Wayfarer

adamantine firmness

Seems to be the way of the belief business whatever side you are on. :joke:

Quoting John Chlebek

I have consistently found beliefs not backed by observation to be not reliable, so there is no contradiction.

I guess your friend or mate was right in this sentence. I would sound quite empiricist but literally how can you have such beliefs when yo don’t even have a back to explain it. There are persons, atheists or whatever, that is not sufficient for them just say “I believe in it because I have faith” when it could sound even empty of content.
I guess difficult context as religion is upon the individual of each person who is free to think if it is a sufficient backed belief or not.

This quote of Wayfarer is interesting and I like it :100:

Quoting Wayfarer

That would be empiricism, broadly speaking.

What you're getting at is close to the problem that emerged for verificationism. Verificationism was associated with positivism and the Vienna Circle during the mid 20th century. A J Ayer's Language Truth and Logic was a very influential book written on these principles, published 1936. It is a very tightly written and argued book. But the problems with positivism became evident over time, very much along the lines that you suggest - that verificationism is not itself an empirically verifiable principle. (Mind you putting it in these highly condensed and bald terms doesn't do justice to the scope of the debates about the subject).

Reply to John Chlebek @Wayfarer's reply does not address your friend's response. Your friend specified that his belief in the efficacy of observation comes from observing the efficacy of observation. This does not put him in the same position as the verificationists, for whom the principle of verification is not subject to verification. Your friend's point was quite literally the opposite of that: that it is on the basis of verification that he believes in the efficacy of verification.

To the degree that your friend's response is a certain kind of empiricism, it is empiricism 'all the way down', as it were. What is sometimes called fallibilism. This kind of thing is arguably open to a certain kind of attack from induction (Hume), but this doesn't have much or anything to do with the verificationists Wayfarer is talking about.

Reply to Wayfarer I want to run something by you if you don't mind. It's got to do with an obvious fact viz. that there are two worlds - the physical and the mental - that define and constitute the human experience. It goes without saying that people are, in a sense, "biased" in favor of the physical world. What I mean is if ever there's an inconsistency between these two worlds, the usual course of action is to reject and dismiss the mental world instead of the physical world. For instance, consider unicorns - that they don't instantiate physically devalues them. Mental objects that don't manifest physically are dismissed and belittled as imaginary which, you're aware, has negative connotations. The ultimate goal seems to be to align the mental world with the physical. In other words, the physical world is given priority over the mental world. The reason for this is quite clear - if we fail to do that, we could plunge into a world of suffering and even end up snug in bodybags, something we definitely wish to avoid. To illustrate, if in our mental world, poisonous snakes are considered harmless, the physical world will revolt against this with fatal consequences.

However, apart from concerns for our own safety and welfare, there really is no other reason why the physical should, in all cases, trump the mental, why physical objects should be privileged as real and affectionately embraced and purely mental objects e.g. unicorns, fairies, leprechuans, god, etc. should be looked down upon as unreal, imaginary, and rejected outright.

What I'm getting at is the special status granted to the physical world and the way we treat the mental world with much contempt. There really is no good reason - apart from saving one's own skin - for doing that. One other factor that's apposite is that we spend most of our life in the physical world rather than in the mental world and thus, reason would advise us to give more attention to the former than the latter. Were it that the situation were reversed - we spending more time in the mental world than in the physical - I'm sure our views on what is real and what is not, with emphasis on god, would be radically different, in fact it would be exactly the opposite and god - a mental object - would be as real as a stone is in the physical world.

Quoting StreetlightX

What is sometimes called fallibilism

Interesting. I want to read and check more about it. Thanks for sharing the link :cheer:

Atheist epistemology?

:point:

My most memorable conversation recently with a theist IIRC turned on 'uncontested epistemological' points and went something like this:

(Atheos) Are there deities you do not believe exist?

(Theos) Yes, all but one.

(A) Why?

(T) For a host of reasons but mostly because (1) they are incompatible with my God and (2) there is no evidence that any other deities exist.

(A) I see. But even if other deities are compatible with your chosen deity, there is no more evidence that your deity exists than there is that any other deity exists.

(T) The evidence is felt, like love, and not "seen" ...

(A) No doubt, but that sort of "evidence" is not publicly accessible, or corroborable. The belief that your deity exists lacks corroborable evidence just as the existence claims of all other deities do. "Feeling love" for your spouse, for example, may be palpable and even exclusive, but that in no way entails that all the other spouses for which you don't "feel love" do not exist. A true belief that something exists is evident in excess, and independent, of (our) feelings; actual facts of the matter must corroborate the belief (claim) that it exists for that belief (claim) to warrant assent.

(T) But God, my God, is not limited to the empirical observation required for corroboration. He exists beyond the observable world, beyond space and time; He transcends existence while simultaneously He is immanent to existence in human feelings of love, compassion & hope "which passeth all understanding" ...

(A) Yeah, I remember my bible-study too. Well said, Theos. Now here's the problem with that homily: "beyond space and time" simply means that something is measurable neither spatially nor temporally, that is, it's zero-dimensional, like a point, purely abstract and lacking any causal relationships whatsoever: non-existent, except as an idea or cipher.

But can a point be "felt" – loving or loved?

Can a point be worshipped?

Can any point be differentiated from any other point?

More directly: after all, friend, a deity that's "beyond space and time" exists indistinguishably from a deity that does not exist.

(T) I understand you, Atheos. But try to understand that my heart feels that which exists beyond all understanding.

(A) In other words, to paraphrase Macbeth, 'like noise without a signal, signifying ...'

(T) Amen.

(To be continued? :smirk:)

Reply to John Chlebek Welcome to TPF!

Quoting TheMadFool

It's got to do with an obvious fact viz. that there are two worlds - the physical and the mental - that define and constitute the human experience.

That's not 'an obvious fact'. There really is no such thing as matter, per se or mind per se. They're abstractions from what, in reality, is a unity, which has mental and physical attributes. It is Cartesian dualism, which is more comparable with an economic model than a scientific hypothesis.

But, in any case, this 'division of the world' into the physical and mental domains which you naturally assume, is a consequence of that widespread Cartesian view. After all, Descartes is taught at University as 'the first modern philosopher', and Cartesian algebraic geometery is fundemental to modern science. So Descartes thinking is hugely influential, it's kind of baked in. Which is why it appears as an an 'obvious fact' when really it's a model.

Quoting TheMadFool

What I'm getting at is the special status granted to the physical world and the way we treat the mental world with much contempt. There really is no good reason - apart from saving one's own skin - for doing that.

There's a clear historical reason for it. It would take a long time to spell it out. A couple of points - one of the, if not the, major figure in advent of modern scientific method is Galileo, of course. Central to his methodology was the discovery of many of the basic concepts of modern physics including mass, velocity and others (replacing the archaic medieval physics). Along with this was his mathematical methology which concentrated on just those attributes of bodies which could be represented mathematically. (You can see where Descartes' algebraic geometery fits into this). And part of this methodology was also to nominate a division between 'primary' qualities - mass, and so on - and 'secondary', which were 'in the mind' of the observing subject. The astonishing achivements of science since the 17th c all rest on this conceptual revolution.

Quoting Wayfarer

They're abstractions from what, in reality, is a unity, which has mental and physical attributes

That's what I meant.

Quoting John Chlebek

But I believe on some level he is begging the question.

Everything does this eventually. Science just tends to be more predictable.

Reply to John Chlebek
I'm not religious and I think "faith" often implies, in many, but not necessarily all cases, belief in the absence of evidence. Having said that, what your atheist interlocuter is saying, does amount to much at all.

Quoting John Chlebek

Most epistemologies agree, broadly, that beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation.

This is an extreme view. First of all, which beliefs is that person talking about? People believe thousands of things, it is practically impossible to have even a small fraction of these beliefs backed by observation in any sense of the word. Where's the observation that confirms the belief that there isn't a supreme power guiding action? There is no such observation. But this example is trivial. I believe that rock is better than jazz, that blue is prettier than pink, that beaches are better than mountains, how could observations possibly justify these beliefs?

But then they could say that I'm not speaking about "beliefs", but am speaking instead of preferences. Fine, but then he's going to have to divide beliefs into rational and irrational beliefs. I believe that treating people kindly is better than treating them with contempt. Surely this must be a rational belief. How can observation possibly confirm or deny this belief absent some further stipulation, such as "it must be confirmed by evidence." But evidence in these cases do not amount for much, it doesn't illuminate our intuitions and dispositions.

Then we can speak of irrational beliefs. Consider say a poor woman, for example, who lost her good baby boy because of some crazy drug war laws. She believes that after this life, she will be able to reunite herself with her son. I don't think this is the case. But it would be cruel, to say the least, to tell that person that this won't happen. In either case, this belief is not irrational, as it allows for some measure of comfort absent abysmal life conditions.

There are irrational beliefs, to be clear. Denying evidence for vaccine effectiveness, believing the world is flat or that machines will take over the world, etc. But in most cases, it's far from clear.

Quoting Banno

Beliefs are considered reliable when they are justified. One form of justification is observation.

Faith is belief despite the lack of justification. Faith glories in believing even when the facts lead elsewhere.

Quoting Banno

What observation backs your belief that 2+2=4?

Or your belief that you have a pain in your foot?

Then you have no justification, or reason, to believe that 2+2=4? Or that you have a pain in your foot? So, you're saying you have faith that 2+2=4 an that you have pains in your feet?

Just like the lack of a loving, omniscient God is justified by the observation of all the violence, hate and unintelligent design in the world, 2+2=4 is verified through observation. The very fact that you think, which is observable, is evidence that you exist. I think, therefore I am.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Then you have no justification, or reason, to believe that 2+2=4? Or that you have a pain in your foot? So, you're saying you have faith that 2+2=4 an that you have pains in your feet?

He is saying this kind of knowledge is not derived empirically. The justification is otherwise derived. Remember the OP is about empiricism (observation) not justifications arrived at via rationalism or personal experience.

Reply to Tom Storm How do you know anything except by some sort of observation? How do you know that you know anything? What reasons do you have to believe anything? How do you know that you're being rational as opposed to being irrational? The evidence you provide to answer these questions will all be observable.

Quoting John Chlebek

Hello:

I had the following conversation with an atheist and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts. It went like this:

Atheist:
Most epistemologies agree, broadly, that beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation. Faith would be belief in that for which there isn't observation, and thus, beliefs so backed are not reliable.

Me:
"beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

I don't think this is backed by any observation. Therefore it contradicts itself.

Atheist:
I have consistently found beliefs not backed by observation to be not reliable, so there is no contradiction.

I'm not sure how to reply to this. But I believe on some level he is begging the question. He said that he has observed that non-observable statements are unreliable. I think his reply would work if he said "I have observed that observable statements are reliable." But the other is just an assumption and is not observable, at least not in the scientific sense he is saying.

There always are 3 ways to argue, those being defense, attack and counter. Some examples:

Defense: You take the counter point of the interlocutor. His claim that: "I have consistently found beliefs not backed by observation to be not reliable" can be countered by bringing up multiple theories in theoretical physics which got confirmed at a later point, like the existence of black holes.

Attack: You bring up the problem of induction; the problem of induction is a big issue for folks who rely too heavily on empiricism. Either you don't account for all specifics, which makes the induction vulnerable to black swan instances or you attempt to do, which is impossible because of the amount.

Counter: You attack the claim itself, in this case that he personally "found beliefs not backed by observation to be not reliable". You can nail him on providing anecdotal evidence because of the wording.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Tom Storm

Quoting Tom Storm

I think Banno nails it. Some atheists will argue that methodological naturalism is the most reliable tool we have for gaining knowledge about the world. But science should not make proclamations about truth and is simply the best we have based on the available evidence. Capital T truth being out of human range and perhaps not even possible.

If you can show that A causes B, and can apply that principle to create technologies that use A to cause B at the press of a button, reliably and consistently, anytime you want, in what way is it not True (with a capital T) that A causes B?

Reply to John Chlebek You could respond, "I have consistently found my faith to be reliable."

Quoting John Chlebek

Me:
"beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

I don't think this is backed by any observation. Therefore it contradicts itself.

You are correct. There are many things in life (phenomenology; consciousness itself, the Will, human sentience, just to name a few things) that are unobservable (and contradicting) yet are true to exist.

Using logic, you may want to ask him to parse the concept of being "unreliable" (?). Or, said another way, what is considered an unreliable truth. I'm afraid he would stumble dearly... .

You could suggest that faith is not a kind of belief and so not subject to justification in the first place.

Rather it is a commitment. The God of love is not reliable and does not prevail; He gets crucified. Faith is to [s]believe in[/s] commit to what does not exist, and try to realise it in one's life.

People say they believe in truth, and justice and so on, but they do not literally believe that the world is just or that the truth always prevails. They commit themselves to promoting these things as best they can.

Quoting John Chlebek

Atheist:
Most epistemologies agree, broadly, that beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation.

Faith would be belief in that for which there isn't observation, and thus, beliefs so backed are not reliable.

Indeed, but they can still be relevant, because often in life, it's about what is at stake, not what the stakes are.

For example, believing it's worth to apply for a job even though there are a thousand other applicants. Or believing that it's worth to take a course of medical treatment even if the chances are slim.

Me:
"beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

You can observe that it makes a difference in a person's life whether they are committed to some particular standard or idea, as opposed to whether they are not.
It's justified, reliable to believe that commitment makes a difference.

I'm not sure how to reply to this. But I believe on some level he is begging the question. He said that he has observed that non-observable statements are unreliable. I think his reply would work if he said "I have observed that observable statements are reliable." But the other is just an assumption and is not observable, at least not in the scientific sense he is saying.

More context is needed here, the specific theistic statements he commented on.

Quoting Banno

Faith is belief despite the lack of justification.

But there is a justification, namely, one to the effect of, "It is worth it to commit to an ideology that promises salvation, even when the situation seems hopeless, and especially then." It's human nature to want out of trouble. (And it tends to happen that when one is in trouble, not that many options for a way out of it are available. They usually don't put Heidegger's books on the bedside in cheap motels.)

I doubt there are many theists who started out by believing that God exists, and then took the whole project of religiosity from there.
Rather (esp. as far as adult converts go), they started off with an existential despair that they resolved with an ideology of hope. The actual issue of the existence of God is secondary or tertiary to all this.

What drives their faith is that initial existential despair. This also explains why adult converts often lose their faith over time or "mellow out": the religiosity they took up in their state of existential despair helped them overcome said despair, and now with the despair gone, so is their faith.

Quoting unenlightened

The God of love is not reliable and does not prevail; He gets crucified

Unenlightened!

In reading that post, I agree with your last sentiment, however, this may need further exploration, for clarifications purposes anyway... .

Though not a theological interpretation, in the history book know as the Bible, The Jesus of Nazareth in there was recorded as being 'reliable' I suppose, in the sense that his truth was denied by other's. In prophesy of course, I think one could argue successfully that the crucifixion narrative/metaphor was very reliable. Reliable in relation to destiny, the temporal nature of the human condition, so on and so forth.

And so I suppose one could say, much can be learned about said human condition, many things of which still apply today (and of course some not so much, like rituals, customs, human sacrifices, etc.).

(As an analogy, some things change and some things don't--the Spanish flu pandemic had the same anti-vaccine, anti-mask resistance/arguments... .)

With all that said, if Epistemology encompasses conscious existence, and in that existence there is the experience and feelings of a thing known as Love, should Love itself prevail? If nothing else, Jesus was known mostly for that.

Quoting counterpunch

If you can show that A causes B, and can apply that principle to create technologies that use A to cause B at the press of a button, reliably and consistently, anytime you want, in what way is it not True (with a capital T) that A causes B?

When people use the term capital T truth they generally mean Platonic Truth or the Ultimate Truth, not causality.

Quoting Tom Storm

When people use the term capital T truth they generally mean Platonic Truth or the Ultimate Truth, not causality.

Reply to Tom Storm

What you said though, is that ...

Quoting Tom Storm

science should not make proclamations about truth

And I wonder, to what degree do you think science makes proclamations about truth amounting the Platonic ideal, or Ultimate Truth? Because in my view, based on every scientific paper I've ever read, scientists go out of their way to define the methodological and evidence based limitations of their truth claims. Given there are different conceptions of truth - do you maintain science doesn't qualify for any of them?

Reply to Harry Hindu Quoting Harry Hindu

How do you know anything except by some sort of observation? How do you know that you know anything? What reasons do you have to believe anything? How do you know that you're being rational as opposed to being irrational? The evidence you provide to answer these questions will all be observable.

Harry this is about epistemology - philosophy has long accepted that knowledge acquired can be divided into that which is a priori (knowledge derived by reason) and that which are a posteriori (knowledge derived by empirical observation). Logical propositions are often a priori, always necessary, and usually analytic. Plenty of information on this important distinction on google.

Quoting counterpunch

And I wonder, to what degree do you think science makes proclamations about truth amounting the Platonic ideal, or Ultimate Truth? Because in my view, based on every scientific paper I've ever read, is that scientists go out of their way to define the methodological and evidence based limitations of their truth claims.

You are building on my very point there. Excellent.

Good science does precisely that and makes no proclamations about capital T Truth. This is a response directed not to scientists but to those theists who constantly accuse science derived atheists of creating another religion out of empiricism or evolution or Darwinism. This is constantly said of Richard Dawkins, for instance. I think it is worth saying because in my debates with Christian apologists over the years they often say (and William Lane Craig says things like this) 'You have faith in science.'

Reply to 3017amen I'm not competent to argue christian theology, so I relate it instead to simple secular principles, like justice. We 'believe' in justice in the sense that we commit to it, we demand it, we seek it, we take pains to implement it. We don't believe that it is a principle of physics or nature. It exists to the extent we live it. and I think love is like this, it is something we can do at a cost to ourselves, not something that is already how things work. Love should prevail justice should prevail, truth should prevail, and this is the faith - make it so!

Reply to unenlightened

Well said Uninightened! Thank you for the inspiration... .

Quoting unenlightened

. It exists to the extent we live it. and I think love is like this, it is something we can do at a cost to ourselves, not something that is already how things work.

That's interesting if not, a profound statement nonetheless. Lessons occur in the strangest places.... Maybe another Kierkagaardian irony of life ?

My interpretation is not either/or there. I know outside the scope of the OP, I would simply say that both are good. It comes at a cost, and it is indeed how things work.

"Justice is what love looks like in public." ~Cornel West

Quoting unenlightened

The God of love is not reliable and does not prevail; He gets crucified.

:pray:

Faith is to [s]believe in[/s] commit to what does not exist, and try to realise it in one's life.

"Well lawdy, lawdy, lawdy, Miss Clawdy!" :naughty:

Quoting unenlightened

We 'believe' in justice in the sense that we commit to it, we demand it, we seek it, we take pains to implement it. We don't believe that it is a principle of physics or nature. It exists to the extent we live it, and I think love is like this, it is something we can do at a cost to ourselves, not something that is already how things work.

:fire: :clap:

Reply to baker You're vacillating.

Thank-you everyone for the replies. Clearly I am out of my depth here. I think many people suggested giving counterexamples. I was initially thinking of alien civilizations. All our current observations (Hubble, FERMI, SETI) confirm that there is nobody out there. But people still strongly believe in the possibility. Other people suggested mathematical proofs, theorems which were later confirmed, and consciousness; which are really good counterexamples.

StreetlightX:
"Your friend specified that his belief in the efficacy of observation comes from observing the efficacy of observation...that it is on the basis of verification that he believes in the efficacy of verification."

Exactly! I was like, wait, does that actually work? I agree with my "friend" that statements which can be verified through observation have high reliability. I also agree that statements that cannot be observed cannot reach that same level of reliability. But I don't think it follows that they necessarily have a low reliability or zero reliability.

God exist is the disappointment that he does not meet our expectations that disillusioned us and cause us to stray away from faith. And is due to ego and desire for control that warps our perspective.

Quoting John Chlebek

All our current observations (Hubble, FERMI, SETI) confirm that there is nobody out there.

Not true. In fact, not even false. Hasty generalization fallacy at work. All of our observations to date merely "confirm" that we haven't yet detected any ETI (or haven't yet recognized them as such). Also, the massive civilizational archive – over ten millennia – of astronomical observations amounts to filling a bucket with briny surf and upon finding no octopi claiming we've "confirmed" there are no octupi in the ocean.

Recall that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for, among other heresies, speculating on "intelligent creatures" living on "innumerable worlds" orbiting "innumerable suns" in an "infinite universe" and then for the next four centuries hundred of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars with, if only fractionally, hundreds of billions of planetary systems – including the sample data set of several thousands exoplanets – have been observed; given the 16th century friar's prodigious prescience, all that remains to be "found" is one or more specimens of Bruno's extraterrestrial "intelligent creatures". Space, my friend, is effin' EFFIN' humungous and human civilization's search-time has been negligably brief, so we haven't yet searched any significant fraction of the Milky Way, let alone the (local) universe. Fermi's Paradox isn't really paradoxical at all (but that's for another thread).

Reply to 180 Proof :100:

Quoting baker

Faith is belief despite the lack of justification.
— Banno
But there is a justification, namely, one to the effect of, "It is worth it to commit to an ideology that promises salvation, even when the situation seems hopeless, and especially then." It's human nature to want out of trouble. (

Oops. Fallacy of equivocation.

Banno meant by "justification" "outside proof; proof that is not inherent in the proposition." (Banno, please correct me if I wrongly ascribe this interpretation to you.) An outside proof to faith would be the fulfilment of objectives in prayers to the Lord.
You, Baker, meant by justification, "the end result": You hope, and it gives you solace; faith helps you in that process.

Two totally different things, covered by the same word in the English language. A perfect example of the fallacy of equivocation.

"Not true. In fact, not even false. Hasty generalization fallacy at work. All of our observations to date merely "confirm" that we haven't yet detected any ETI"

Yes, I personally believe they do exist. But we currently do not have any observation that confirms their existence. Hence, according to the statement of my friend, belief in alien civilizations is "unreliable". But, as you pointed out, this is not true.

Reply to 180 Proof (y)

(T), you make an existential claim to others ...

• if you're referring to something extra-self, then show us something[sup](existentially mind-independent, objective, applicable to both of us)[/sup]
• if you're referring to something you have on your mind, then tell us about it[sup](typically existentially mind-dependent, subjective)[/sup]

What do you have, (T)?

Quoting John Chlebek

But we currently do not have any observation that confirms their existence.

We currently do not have any reliable evidence of intelligent life on other planets. Of course for those who believe in personal experience as good evidence, we have thousands of people who claim to have had experiences of alien abduction and the concomitant probings. :gasp:

Quoting John Chlebek

But we currently do not have any observation that confirms their existence.

There is life on this planet.

Reply to tim wood Quoting John Chlebek

Yes, I personally believe they [alien life forms] do exist. But we currently do not have any observation that confirms their existence. Hence, according to the statement of my friend, belief in alien civilizations is "unreliable".

There's a matter of principle at stake here, though. The point is, the existence of alien life is an empirical question that can be resolved by observation, in principle. That is, if we observed an alien life form, then we would know it exists.

But the existence, or rather reality, of God, is not empirical in principle. God is not something that can be observed, in the sense empiricism understands 'observation' no matter what kind of instruments you have; you're not going to find anything corresponding to God looking through the Hubble Telescope, or in the bubble chambers of the Large Hadron Collider.

[quote=Bill Vallicella]If someone asserts that there there is a celestial teapot orbiting the Sun, or an angry unicorn on the far side of the Moon, or that 9/11 was an 'inside job,' one will justifiably demand evidence. "It's possible, but what's your evidence for so outlandish a claim?" It is the same with God, say many atheists. The antecedent probability of God's existence, they think, is on a par with the extremely low antecedent probability of there being a celestial teapot or an irate lunar unicorn, a 'lunicorn,' if you will.

But this is to assume something that a sophisticated theist such as Thomas Aquinas would never grant, namely, that God, if he exists, is just another being among the totality of beings. For Aquinas, God is not an ens (a being) but esse ipsum subsistens (self-subsistent Being). God is not a being among beings, but Being itself. Admittedly, this is not an easy notion; but if the atheist is not willing to grapple with it, then his [objections] are just so many grapplings with a straw man.

Why can't God be just another being among beings in the way an orbiting teapot would be just another being among beings were it to exist? I hope it is clear that my point is not that while a teapot is a material object, God is not. That's true, of course, but my point cuts much deeper: if God exists, he exists in a way dfferent from the way contingent beings exist.[/quote]

Remainder here

That is why every argument against the reality of God based on His purported non-observability is a straw man, or rather straw god, argument. And the main reason for that is that in post-Enlightenment philosophy, there are no 'ways that things can exist' - either they exist or they don't. (Hence the irresolvable arguments about the reality of scientific laws, numbers, geometric forms etc). Empiricism - the demand that only what can be scientifically validated is to be believed - is baked into the culture (about which, see Jacques Maritain The Cultural Impact of Empiricism.)

I think much of the controversy is because the metaphors and myths in which religious tropes are conveyed, are misinterpreted, often by those who argue for them (i.e. religious apologists.) The reality or otherwise of a 'higher intelligence' is not something that is subject to empirical validation, at best, it's a matter of abductive inference, although those inclined to believe will continue to do so, and those inclined to unbelief will argue the contrary.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood I’m attempting to approach it from a ‘philosophy of religion’ perspective, that’s all.

Reply to tim wood Quoting tim wood

Shall I suppose that at least we agree that talk about g/God is pretty much useless until and unless first there's a meeting of minds on what g/God means, or that is, no wothy discussion unless folks know at least their own minds?

I think that's fair. Unless the idea of God is kept enticingly vague and ambiguous, it would be very hard to get agreement on what it means, even from those people who accept the proposition of theism to be true.

Quoting Tom Storm

Unless the idea of God is kept enticingly vague and ambiguous, it would be very hard to get agreement on what it means

I think a Christian would say that what it means is that you love your neighbour as yourself (in rather less archaic language, show unconditonal compassion) - and so on. Philosophers dwell on words, theories, and arguments, but the real meaning can only ever be shown in how you live, not merely said. I think that's how a Christian would respond.

Reply to Wayfarer I'm sure that's largely true about the meaning of the faith but not so much God's nature.

Reply to InPitzotl BOOM. :smirk:

Quoting Wayfarer

But the existence, or rather reality, of God, is not empirical in principle. God is not something that can be observed, in the sense empiricism understands 'observation' ...

Saying something exists in fact which nonetheless cannot be even in principle scientifically observed simply says that that something does not in fact exist, no?

Well then please, Wayf, cite an example of an X that exists (not merely 'subsists' like a number or Meinongian referent) which is indistinguishable from, or identical to, X that does not exist. (By X exists I mean the way the vast majority of religious practioners who have ever lived up until today literally "believe" g/G exists. (pace Tillich et al)) I can't think of one; it's reasonable to surmise that the sufficient condition for an X to exist is that 'X exists' is an objectively different state-of-affairs from 'X does not exist'.

Let that serve as some ontic-epistemic context for the excerpt from a post (below) resurrected from a tiresome old thread that's long since given up the ghost ... re: contra theism's sine que non claims (i.e. 'divine predicates'):
Quoting 180 Proof

Well, in so far as the universe's earliest measurable era had a planck radius and was an acausal quantum event (i.e. a random vacuum fluctuation re: Noether's Theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Hartle-Hawking No Boundary, etc), causal agency such as "creator g/G" does not obtain. Evidence of "creation" - higher than minimal entropy - must be observable (directly or indirectly) like all other events / physical transformations in the universe and yet there is no such evidence whatsoever; therefore, this entails that there is no - never was a - "creator g/G". Theism - Abrahamic, Vedic, Greco-Roman, Norse, etc - is not true.

It doesn't matter whether or not g/G is "supernatural" but whether or not any such g/G is defined as intervening - causing changes - in nature; and if so, because nature is scientifically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable, then the claims of believers or scriptures that some g/G has intervened - caused changes - in nature entails observable (direct or indirect) evidence - and yet there is none whatsoever. Again, theism is not true.

One must not know whether or not there is scientifically observable nature in order not to know whether or not there is (at least one) g/G that intervenes - causes changes - in, or created, nature. Scientific (& historical) illiteracy notwithstanding, nature itself is evidence that there is no theistic g/G - theism is not true. If someone claims that an angel walked across wet cement, then there must be footprints; if there are no footprints in the wet cement, then that 'walking angel' so described does not exist - or the claim that she walked across the wet cement is not true - because walking on wet cement causes the observable effect of leaving behind footprints.

In sum: any g/G that is demonstrably (inconsistent with its "revealed" sources) neither 'creator' nor 'intervener' is indistinguishable from every fictional g/G, no?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Tom Storm

I'm sure that's largely true about the meaning of the faith but not so much God's nature.

You might find this OP from Karen Armstrong relevant to the issue.

Quoting 180 Proof

It doesn't matter whether or not g/G is "supernatural" but whether or not any such g/G is defined as intervening - causing changes - in nature; and if so, because nature is scientifically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable, then the claims of believers or scriptures that some g/G has intervened - caused changes - in nature entails observable (direct or indirect) evidence - and yet there is none whatsoever.

You might notice that is not a response to the argument I posted from Bill Vallicella.

Quoting 180 Proof

One must not know whether or not there is scientifically observable nature in order not to know whether or not there is (at least one) g/G that intervenes - causes changes - in, or created, nature.

'Causing changes to' and 'created' are completely different things. But I can observe that science doesn't explain natural law or the order of nature. Rather it assumes it on the basis of observation. But what scientific laws are, and why they are the way they are, are also not questions for science, although there's nothing to stop scientists expressing a view about it.

As for what 'created' means, I think it is far from obvious. Of course I have no truck with creationism understood as a literalist interpretation of religious texts. But the cosmic anthropological principle is a far cry from creationism. I find the observation that the cosmos emerged from the apparent chaos of the 'Big Bang' with just those constants that were required for the formation of an actual universe quite a persuasive argument in favour of natural theology.

Quoting tim wood

Human behavior, perspective, attitude? That is, an idea and some of the implications of such an idea? Ok. But existence only as behavior, perspective, and attitude exist. Is this your God? Or not?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question, but I hope I am not, and don't think I am, discussing a concept that is peculiar to myself.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood [quote= Paul Tyson, De-fragmenting Modernity. ]Liberal secularism is itself a violent regulator of ‘private’ belief. You can believe whatever you like, provided you do not believe that your personal beliefs are actually objectively true, or matter in any public way. You can have whatever personal loyalties you like, provided you give uncompromising public loyalty to the state in which you are born, to the liberal and secular laws it mandates.[/quote]

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Religion has its own house in its own neighborhood where no one has any reason to interfere with it. But instead it wants to to move into where it does not belong. Which in any analysis has, is, and always will be self-destructive.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood So, has no place in the 'public square', right?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood I'm reflecting back to you the remark you made, that I quoted twice. 'It [religion] wants to move into the house where it doesn't belong', which is where 'we share the common coin, existence'. So what you're saying here, is that what you take to be the 'common coin' has to be defended against encroachment by religions. That is why I made that remark about how 'the secular' tends to be a 'regulator of private belief'. 'You can believe whatever you like, provided you do not believe that your personal beliefs are actually objectively true, or matter in any public way.' Which is exactly what you said. Is it not? Have I interpreted it wrongly?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

[deleted]

Quoting Banno

You're vacillating.

?
You'll need to say more.

Quoting baker

You'll need to say more.

Or not.

Reply to Banno *sigh*